King James Only Believers And The LXX
King James Only Believers And The LXX
In their desire to repudiate the modern versions of the Scriptures, certain KJVO believers have taken it upon themselves to deny the existence of the Septuagint (LXX).1 The reason for their doing so is given in their own words:
“Then why are scholars so quick to accept the existence of this LXX in the face of such irrefutable arguments against it? The answer is sad and simple.
Hebrew is an extremely difficult language to learn. It takes years of study to attain a passing knowledge of it. And many more to be well enough versed to use it as a vehicle of study. By comparison a working knowledge of Greek is easily attainable. Thus, IF THERE WAS an official translation of the Old Testament into Greek, Bible critics could triple the field of influence overnight without a painstaking study of biblical Hebrew. Unfortunately, the acceptance of the existence of the Septuagint on such thin evidence is based solely on pride and voracity.”2
“Codex B, the LXX, is a revision of the Greek texts extant during Origin’s time. He used the versions of the Ebonite’s’ Aquilla (c. 128), Symmachus (c. 180-192 A.D.), and Theodotin (c. 161-181) for the Hexapla reconstruction, along with three other anonymous translations that have become known as the Quinta, the Sexta, and Septima. From this point on in this paper the OT Greek text, usually misnamed LXX or Septuagint, will be called the Greek Text of Origen, GTO. A Greek text of the minor prophets found in the Judean desert caves dates to around the time of “the second Jewish revolt in the years 132-135″ A.D. by the personal letters of Bar Kokhba. They cannot be claimed with any certainty as part of a B.C. Septuagint. As a matter of fact, they contain translational features found in other A.D. texts such as those of Aquila and of the Quinta.”3
In other words, these KJVO believers reject the existence of the LXX because it will support Codex B, the Vaticanus Manuscript, which includes the LXX. The existence of the LXX would mean that Codex B is much older than KJVO and TRO (Textus Receptus Only) believers declare it to be. It would also mean that New Testament quotations of the LXX lend support to Codex B. That would then destroy the idea that the Byzantine family of texts is the best and purest family of texts.
We must answer the question, then, concerning the existence of the LXX. We shall do that with two proofs:
-
The Dead Sea Scrolls. Qumran has yielded to us copies of the LXX in Greek.4
-
The words of Irenaus: “Since, therefore, the Scriptures have been interpreted with such fidelity, and by the grace of God, and since from these God has prepared and formed again our faith towards His Son, and has preserved to us the unadulterated Scriptures in Egypt, where the house of Jacob flourished, fleeing from the famine in Canaan; where also our Lord was preserved when He fled from the persecution set on foot by Herod; and [since] this interpretation of these Scriptures was made prior to our Lord?’s descent [to earth], and came into being before the Christians appeared – for our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus; but Ptolemy was much earlier, under whom the Scriptures were interpreted; – [since these things are so, I say,] truly these men are proved to be impudent and presumptuous, who would now show a desire to make different translations, when we refute them out of these Scriptures, and shut them up to a belief in the advent of the Son of God. But our faith is steadfast, unfeigned, and the only true one, having clear proof from these Scriptures, which were interpreted in the way I have related; and the preaching of the Church is without interpolation. For the apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these [heretics], agree with this aforesaid translation; and the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetical [announcements], just as the interpretation of the elders contains them.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies chp 21, Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.
Note what Irenaeus is saying. He is telling us that the LXX existed in his day, which was many years before Origen. In other words, the story of Origen writing/manufacturing the LXX is simply a fabrication itself.
The question that we must now ask ourselves is this: which group is actually being more faithful to the original text? Is it the KJVO/TRO believers, or is it those who are using Codex B in their translation efforts? Suddenly, the textual issue shines more clearly. In fact, it becomes quite obvious that texts which are supported by Codex B are indeed texts that should be considered most valid. After all, Codex B and the LXX are of the same family: the Alexandrian family. Suddenly, we find that the Alexandrian texts are indeed reliable. After all, the apostles considered them to be such, and used them. My reply to the KJVO believers, then is, “If the Alexandrian texts were good enough for Paul, they’re good enough for me.”
We may indeed have great confidence in many of the modern versions which we have today! They are truly based upon older, more reliable manuscripts.
1 http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1763356/posts Accessed 08/02/2009
http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/miscellaneous/what_is_the_lxx.htm Accessed 08/02/2009
2 http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/miscellaneous/what_is_the_lxx.htm Accessed 08/02/2009
3 http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1763356/posts Accessed 08/02/2009
4 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html Accessed 08/02/2009
Tags: alexandrian text, byzantine text, King James Only, King James Version, KJVO, LXX, septuagint, textual issues
Bible Versions, KJV-onlyism, KJVO, Manuscript Evidence, Preservation, Textual Variant
This is truly one of the major, if not the most important, issue in this whole debate. Unfortunately it is dismissed all too lightly in modern KJVO “scholarship.” I attended a seminar with Dr. Waite in which he said, in passing, that the “LXX was created by Origen because it appears in his hexapla.” As if an appearance indicates origin (no pun intended). Then Sam Gipp has a lengthy lecture on how there’s no LXX before Christ because the Letter of Aristeas is a mythological letter. Yet, scholars know this! Obviously Aristeas was giving a supernatural character to the translation of the LXX (the 70/72 translators going their separate ways and coming together with a final product that was perfect. . .hmmm, sounds familiar), and simply pointing that out doesn’t disprove the existence of an older Greek OT.
As was pointed out in a post I’ve written a few months back (http://biblicism.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/christ-and-the-scriptures-part-iii-jesus-bibliology/ ), this is an issue of terminology. Since there is some question as to the origins of the LXX and whether or not there really was “a” LXX (as in an official Greek OT recognized by the Jews), it’s easy for the KJVO to say there was none altogether. But as is constantly pointed out, whether or not one wants to admit there was a Septuagint or not, or that the LXX we know now is the same as the LXX BC, 2 things are evident:
1) The Lord Jesus and the Apostles used a version other than the Masoretic text about 2/3 of the time they quoted the OT. Denying this is the LXX doesn’t change the fact they used something different, which is a fatal blow to the KJVO position.
2) The first few centuries of Christianity saw Christians predominantly use the LXX as their OT, which lead the the rejection of it by the Jews of that time.
Jason, as you pointed out, this is a big problem for the KJVO advocate, but I’m not holding my breath for substantial dialog. Probably some links to other websites will be given and you’ll be called names. I’d love to be surprised.
Well, to hear the other side of the story about the fabled LXX, you can start here. Then click on the other articles. I put these together myself.
The idea that the N.T. quotes were placed in the so called Septuagint (there are several of them, and they are all really bad translations) is not some new KJB only theory. Jerome, John Gill and John Owen all believed that the completed N.T. quotes were placed in the LXXs
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXOne.html
Will Kinney
“probably some links to other websites will be given. . ”
I’m a prophet.
I am KJBO, and I think that the Septuagint existed prior to the time of Christ. I suggest that it dates to 275 B.C., though I am open to the possibility that Origen did reverse engineer somewhat in his editorial work. I do not see the fact of a Greek translation of the Old Testament any way contradicts the New Testament, nor does it nullify anything of what the KJB actually is, that is, that the KJB is a translation far superior to the LXX, in fact, quite unlike the LXX, because the KJB is fixed and perfect. Maybe Origen’s LXX is in some way like Scrivener’s Paragraph KJB edition is to normal editions of the KJB.
1. The false letter of Aristeas is no proof against the LXX, but the letter containing much which is clearly false, belies that there must be a true, or entirely more natural origins than the letter suggests, e.g. several (maybe 70) scholars taking 70 or 72 days to complete a translation in Egypt.
2. The New Testament does not overtly disprove of the use of the LXX, but mention of Scriptures, especially in verses like Romans 16:26 necessitate the existence of the LXX.
3. The suggestion from the evidence at hand is in favour of a pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament.
4. Whether or not New Testament writings were transplanted into the a Greek Old Testament (i.e. by Origen) does not negate that there was a Greek Old Testament. Moreover, it cannot be stated certainly that Origen edited in this manner at every place, but that some degree of correspondence between New Testament quotations of the Old Testament may be found in the pre-Origenic LXX. Genuine correspondence in itself is not directly an approval by the Holy Ghost of the LXX as a whole, but could be used to infer that the Greek Old Testament was right in some places, and more importantly, that Scripture was NOT locked in Hebrew for the Old Testament. The argument that the jots and tittles of the law referred to in the New Testament as relating to the Old cannot be limited to Hebrew, though there is an upholding of Hebrew as authoritative in the New Testament, but that it would indicate the very thing that the KJBO would actually believe, namely, that God would consider the Scripture in a translation, where properly translated, to be Scripture indeed. Just as the KJB is Scripture perfectly, so the LXX must also be said to be Scripture, though imperfect.
Damien posts: “probably some links to other websites will be given. . ”
I’m a prophet.”
Hi Damien. I suspect (though I may be wrong) that you posted this a subtle sarcasm. That is probably because you are running out of sound arguments and are faced with the fact that you have been fed a lot of lies by the “No bible is the inspired and infallible words of God” folks out there.
There is a lot more information on the other side of the LXX question. Can you produce just one verse or portion of a verse quoted anywhere by the Lord Jesus or one of the N.T. writers that is directly taken from these alleged Pre-Christian Septuagints, and prove it? Not a chance.
Here is more on the alleged LXX in case you didn’t find the other links. There are 5 parts to it. I put it together myself; it is not some cut and paste job from some other site.
By the way, I am no prophet. I am a simple Bible believer who believes The Book is God’s pure and perfect words of truth. And this is not because I am smarter or holier or more spiritual than you or anybody else. It is solely by the sovereign grace and mercy of God alone that He has given me the faith to believe His words – ALL of them.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXTwo.html
In his massive exposition of Hebrews, John Owen makes some interesting observations regarding the relationship of the book of Hebrews to the LXX. He was well schooled in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and Syriac. He possessed a vast knowledge of manuscripts and other translations. In his work on the book of Hebrews, Owen discusses each passage in great detail about the Hebrew and Greek, along with comments about the LXX translations done by Aquila, Theodotian, and Symmachus. (These last three men mentioned each attempted a Greek translation of the O.T. after the N.T. was already completed. Today, there is little left of their writings, but we know that they all three differed from each other.)
In his commentary, John Owen makes this amazing statement: “It is evident that they are exceedingly mistaken who affirm that the apostle cites all his testimonies out of the translation of the LXX, as we intimated is by some pleaded… Should he [Paul] have had any respect unto that translation [LXX], it were impossible to give any tolerable account whence he should so much differ from it almost in every quotation, as is plain that he doth… And thus, in those testimonies where there is a real variation from the Hebrew original, THE APOSTLE TOOK NOT HIS WORDS FROM THE TRANSLATION OF THE LXX, BUT HIS WORDS WERE AFTERWARDS INSERTED INTO THAT TRANSLATION… Whereas the reasons of the apostle for his application of the testimonies used by him in his words and expressions are evident, as shall in particular be made to appear, so no reason can be assigned why the LXX – IF ANY SUCH LXX THERE WERE – who translated the Old Testament, or any other translators of it, should so render the words of the Hebrew text.” Exposition Of Hebrews, Vol I, Exercitation V. (CAPS are mine)
All of grace,
Will Kinney
Hi bibleprotector. You post:2. The New Testament does not overtly disprove of the use of the LXX, but mention of Scriptures, especially in verses like Romans 16:26 necessitate the existence of the LXX.
I am glad to hear you are King James Bible only. You have probably run into this example before, but if not, I present it for others to consider as well. I think it is a classic example of the smoking gun showing that what passes today as the LXX was actually written after the N.T. was written.
Proof that the LXX was copied from the New Testament
Psalm 14 with Romans 3:10-18
In the epistle to the Romans, the apostle Paul makes a list of Old Testament quotes showing the depravity of man and his rebellion against God. These citatations are taken from various Old Testament books, and all of them can be found scattered throughout the Hebrew texts.
The Hebrew texts do NOT contain these nine verses listed one after the other in any place. Instead, they are scattered throughout the Psalms and the book of Isaiah.
Romans 3:10-18
3:10 “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
3:11 “There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. ”
3:12 “They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”
(The first three verses are taken from Psalm 14:1-3 and Psalm 53:1-3.)
3:13 “Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: (Taken from Psalm 5:9 and Psalm 140:3)
3:14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:” (from Psalm 10:7)
3:15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood:” (from Isaiah 59:7)
3:16 “Destruction and misery are in their ways:” (from Isaiah 59:7)
3:17 “And the way of peace have they not known:” (from Isaiah 59:8)
3:18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (from Psalm 36:1)
In the Hebrew texts both Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 read basically the same in the first three verses, and then the remaining content of each differs considerably. They are two different Psalms.
In the Hebrew texts, Psalm 14 reads as it does in the King James Bible. The first three verses are as follows:
Psalm 14:1-3 “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”
“The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.”
“They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”
This is the reading of all Jewish translations, including the 1917 Jewish Publication Society, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, and the Complete Jewish Bible of 1998. So too read the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV and the Holman Standard. It is also highly significant that the Modern Greek O.T. now omits these extra verses too, and follows the Hebrew readings instead of the previous LXX version.
However the Greek Septuagint version greatly expands Psalm 14 verse 3, and ADDS SIX ENTIRE VERSES WORD FOR WORD taken from the New Testament book of Romans 3:13-18.
I am astounded that some would point to Psalm 14 in the LXX version, and claim that Paul was using this Greek translation when he composed the book of Romans. I guess people believe what they want to believe. Rather, it seems to me Proof Positive that the present day LXX version took the already completed New Testament writings, and transplanted them back into their Greek translation.
IF the original LXX translators had made their translation from the Hebrew texts way back in 300 B.C, as all Septuagint promoters allege, then WHERE did they get these additional six whole verses, and place them word for word in their translation of Psalm 14, when NO Hebrew text reads even remotely like this??? The simple answer is, they got them directly from Romans 3:10-18 AFTER the New Testament was already complete.
SUPPORT FROM AN UNEXPECTED SOURCE – ST. JEROME
In Adam Clarke’s commentary on Psalm 14 he notes: “Yet IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED, PARTICULARLY BY ST. JEROME, THAT PAUL DID NOT QUOTE THEM (the verses in Romans 3:10-18) from this Psalm; but…he collected from different parts several passages that bore upon the subject, and united them here….AND THAT SUCCEDDING COPYISTS, FINDING THEM IN ROMANS INSERTED THEM INTO THE SEPTUAGINT, from which it was presumed they had been lost. It does not appear that they made a part of this Psalm in Origen’s Hexapla. In the portions that still exist of this Psalm there is not a word of these additional verses referred to in that collection, neither here nor in the parallel Psalm 53.”
Now keep in mind, that in working on the Latin Vulgate in 380 A.D., Jerome began to consult the Hebrew texts. Here is testimony from a learned scholar way back in 380 A.D. who held to the idea that the LXX borrowed whole verses from the already completed N.T. text, and transplanted them back into their LXX version.
Will Kinney
This can be best explained as the Greek Old Testament being tampered with after the writing of the New Testament.
Those who try and look for New Testament quotes from the Old Testament need to realise that in fact the Holy Ghost is acting as an interpreter, and that the New Testament is inspired, therefore whether or not the author is quoting from the LXX or is translating himself from Hebrew into Greek (because the NT is written in Greek, even when quoting the OT), that the Holy Ghost is in control. The Holy Ghost did not inspire the makers of the LXX, but the LXX was providential, because it was prepared for Christian preaching to the Gentiles (e.g. Romans 15:4, Col. 1:5, 6, etc.)
Jason has some points which I do not agree with concerning the LXX.
1. The LXX does not support Alexandrian tradition of the New Testament as it is now known under that title, as represented chiefly in several extant Codices.
a. The LXX is the Old Testament, not the New.
b. The LXX pre-exists the earliest extant Alexandrian New Testament text-type evidence.
c. The LXX is not limited to Egypt, but its influence may be found in both Byzantine and Latin areas and their OT tradition.
2. The LXX being found in Codex B does not taint the LXX as such.
a. The LXX found in Codex B may be a later, edited and corrupted form of the LXX, just as Codex B has a corrupted form of the NT.
b. The presence of the LXX as the OT in Codex B does not cast any more doubt on the LXX than the doubt which should be inferred upon the KJB in a parallel Bible containing both the KJB and the Revised Version.
3. Christians in the Apostolic Era in Alexandria and elsewhere in Egypt were using Scripture. This does not imply that the text form now called “Alexandrian” was in use at that time.
a. The corruption of the New Testament in Egypt does not automatically imply that the Old Testament which was made in Egypt years earlier in another circumstance is corrupt.
b. Apollos used Scripture, read Scripture and believed Scripture. He was from Alexandria. This in no way can be used to approve of the corrupted Codex B which dates from centuries AFTER Apollos.
c. Whether or not the LXX was being used by Apollos or others in the time of the Apostles in no way gives approval to the corrupted New Testament which, as far as any real “fixed” formation and general empire-wide or world dissemination, dates to the nineteenth century.
d. There is no problem with the Greek Old Testament coming from Egypt, being made common and used widely in the Roman world in early Christian times.
As a side note, the equasion that Antioch equals good and Egypt equals bad is not correct. Although Egypt is a type representing the world, this does not make Egypt as a place evil (e.g. see Isaiah 19). Likewise, just because something is at Antioch does not guarantee that it is perfect (e.g. see Gal. 2:11).
BP,
Thanks for weighing in. As usual, you bring out some interesting points. Thanks for your good attitude and willingness to dialogue. I hope I shall treat you with the same respect.
I shall respond to your post, then leave you with the last say. I cannot spend much time on the blog this week.
“Jason has some points which I do not agree with concerning the LXX.
1. The LXX does not support Alexandrian tradition of the New Testament as it is now known under that title, as represented chiefly in several extant Codices.
a. The LXX is the Old Testament, not the New.
b. The LXX pre-exists the earliest extant Alexandrian New Testament text-type evidence.
c. The LXX is not limited to Egypt, but its influence may be found in both Byzantine and Latin areas and their OT tradition.”
I am not implying that the LXX is NT. Neither am I intending to imply that the LXX IS THE Alexandrian text. I am saying that it is related. Obviously those who reject its existence understand that, thus this article.
I do not deny a widespread geographical range for the LXX. I do state that it originated in Alexandria….one good reason for associating it with Alexandrian texts, as it would have been used in Alexandrian libraries, schools, etc.
I do understand that the LXX pre-exists Alexandrian NT text-types. My point is precisely that. The early date for the LXX means that it was NOT created by Origen, comes from Alexandria, and has a kinship to the Alexandrian text due to its origin, and has been recognized as such even by those who deny its existence. That is why they deny that it exists.
“2. The LXX being found in Codex B does not taint the LXX as such.
a. The LXX found in Codex B may be a later, edited and corrupted form of the LXX, just as Codex B has a corrupted form of the NT.
b. The presence of the LXX as the OT in Codex B does not cast any more doubt on the LXX than the doubt which should be inferred upon the KJB in a parallel Bible containing both the KJB and the Revised Version.”
I’m not sure where you’re going with this. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that the LXX tainted anything.
“3. Christians in the Apostolic Era in Alexandria and elsewhere in Egypt were using Scripture. This does not imply that the text form now called “Alexandrian” was in use at that time.
a. The corruption of the New Testament in Egypt does not automatically imply that the Old Testament which was made in Egypt years earlier in another circumstance is corrupt.
b. Apollos used Scripture, read Scripture and believed Scripture. He was from Alexandria. This in no way can be used to approve of the corrupted Codex B which dates from centuries AFTER Apollos.
c. Whether or not the LXX was being used by Apollos or others in the time of the Apostles in no way gives approval to the corrupted New Testament which, as far as any real “fixed” formation and general empire-wide or world dissemination, dates to the nineteenth century.
d. There is no problem with the Greek Old Testament coming from Egypt, being made common and used widely in the Roman world in early Christian times.”
Again, I do not imply that there was an Alexandrian text in NT times. I am stating that there is a kinship between the LXX and the Alexandrian text that is recognized even by those who reject the LXX as being a real document.
Apollos has nothing to do with this discussion, that I can see. Seriously. I don’t see how he fits here.
The formation of the NT text as we see it today in modern versions does not date only to the nineteenth century. That, unfortunately is a misunderstanding, or a mis-statement. Recent scholarship has taken ancient texts such as Codex B and sought to reconcile the variants one with the other to make a text that is faithful to the original. The texts they use are much older than the nineteenth century. You know that, so I’m not sure why this statement. I believe it must have come across differently than you intended, as you are obviously an intelligent and seemingly honest person.
As far as your statement concerning the text coming from Egypt in ancient i.e. early Christian times, I agree. That is one reason that I see the need to include the Alexandrian text at the table when the issue is discussed.
Thanks for the good, sensible approach to the Antioch vs Egypt issue. That is refreshing.
brother Will,
no, that wasn’t subtle sarcasm, that was rather overt. And it was funny. (not as funny as your claim that I’m running out of arguments, but I tried) Sorry if you didn’t like it. It’s just that your argumentation is very predictable. While I respect the fact that you’ve written extensively on these matters, constantly linking to your articles is getting tiring. Since they’re long, they bring up so many new arguments that have to be discussed, and that’s not quite what a Comments Section on a blog is for. We’d rather just engage the arguments in the post.
Can I name any verses that came from the LXX? Surely, I can probably name 100. Of the 300+ quotes in the NT of the OT, roughly 2/3 match with the LXX (see the link in my first comment – see I can link to stuff I wrote too). My favorite is Luke 4:18,19, as I put together in this chart that Bob enlarged for me: http://fundyreformed.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/lxx2.jpg .
Anyway, I know you’re not a prophet, but thanks for the remainder. I would question that it’s “simple” and all of grace that you would exclusively adhere to one 17th century Anglican translation of the Bible into Elizabethean English. I guess I missed that verse in the Bible.
Yes, as has been pointed out, John Owen is on your side on the LXX issue. The KJV translators are on our side. You can find anyone in history that agrees with your view, I guess. As much as I respect Owen and no doubt he’s a much greater scholar than I’ll ever be, I simply believe he was wrong on this.
bibleprotector,
I agree with your reasons for accepting an early LXX. How does the fact that the apostles and Christ favorably employ its usage affect your King James Onlyism? I know you’re way different than the majority of KJVO we deal with. Most deny the existence of the LXX, and those who don’t would say that they were just using what was available. The problem is that they condemn all of us for using other versions, when the Lord Himself and His apostles did the same. What do you think of this?
1. There is no direct influence upon a sound KJBO view by the fact or lack of fact of a pre-Christian LXX. However, if the Scripture was translated and used in the days of the Apostles, this should lead us to favour the English Bible which is also a translation from the Hebrew.
2. I am not “condemning” people for using something other than the KJB, but I do believe that it is a weaker view to do so. I think that those who know better, but persist in rejecting the KJB are condemned by their own conscience.
3. The use of another version/translation in the time of the Apostles in itself shows that the Scripture has sufficiently been present in various translations throughout history, and is an argument for our Protestant English Versions. However, when we have a perfect standard (there was no perfect standard in the various Greek translations of the OT which came to pass) it would be right to adhere to this standard, even if it is a translation, not an original language edition.
The fact is that the KJB presents the exact text of the Hebrew that was inspired, and that it presents sense for sense in a global language what was communicated in the original language. Therefore, not only is the KJB equal to what was inspired, but it is better because it is all in one book, in one common world language, and now free even from copyist/press errors which are found in copies/translation editions.
oh and I agree that the LXX-Vaticanus connection isn’t that strong. I think the main reason KJVO reject the LXX isn’t because it supports B, but because it would mean Christ and the Apostles used a version that differed from the traditional Hebrew. So I would have to disagree with Jason on that.
Damien,
I’m learning on this whole issue. I’m sure I could have stated my case more plainly. You are correct that it definitely means Jesus and the Apostles used a text that was not “kosher” according to KJVO standards. I wish I had stated that.
My main goal, however, was to prove the existence of the LXX, and to show that there is at least some familial connection there.
Honestly, there’s familial connection between Byzantine and Alexandrian texts. After all, we’re not comparing the Koran and the Bible, but the Bible and the Bible.
That’s what truly makes all of this issue somewhat disgusting. KJVO takes the Bible, pits it against itself, and then helps make Christendom a house divided.
Anyway, gotta get off this thing for quite a while and study.
Damian, coming from the KJVO camp(thank God I can say that!), I believe that you are dead on here.
Sam Gipp has stated, contrary to even biblical evidence, that God has always had one bible in one language…. so to have a Hebrew and a Greek bible quoted by the Apostles flies in the face of this argument. We know from the DSS, that they read the Greek OT, and Hebrew, and Aramiac. (No 16th English version could be found, however.)
If the Apostles were not choosy over their biblical translations, then why are we?
As a KJBO, I argue that:
1. God has not always used the Bible in one language.
a. There was one language.
b. After Babel there was many.
c. Inspiration was in three langauges, Hebrew, Syriack and Greek.
d. Pentecost and Early Church evidence shows that the Scripture went forth to the Gentiles in various tongues.
e. In time, the world has been heading toward one common language, English. It is logical that God also has supplied one final perfect Bible for all in the same tongue. The KJB.
2. The use of translations by early Christians does not mean exactly the same thing as the use of Scripture during inspiration. Inspiration is a special unique circumstance. Translations are general, although allowed by the Holy Ghost, were not always perfect. The Holy Ghost is not the author of the divergences or variations. The Holy Ghost therefore would work to have His Word go forth to the world in various languages as an intermediary step toward having one final Bible for all. That day is coming, when the KJB will be supreme among nations.
Jason,
you’re absolutely right about the “house divided” thing. These text families point to a common ancestor and we should rejoice that, despite their differences, they’re all so similar!
And perhaps I didn’t word my disagreement well enough. You do have a case for the connection, I just haven’t considered it. I think you did a good job giving some evidences for the LXX.
Damien,
You wrote your statement well enough for me to understand it.
I simply should have drawn out the connections that I was making a little more plainly. As you can see from my email, I wrote it at about 1AM. That explains why it is no more clear
Of course, the “anything from Alexandria is of the devil” argument is in play here as well. So one has to believe a tin foil hat, conspiracy theory view of Church history in order for the KJV onlyist arguments against the LXX to really work.
Fred – it Alexandria had only been the of Clement of A and Origen, and that city’s Dionysus, perhaps then we could mistrust anything from that dirt -
But as everyone should know, men of character such as Athanasius and his predecessor, Alexander, defended from that city the sacredness of the divinity of Christ over against the (semi-)Arians in Palestine.
I thank God for that city.
[...] On the Septuagint [...]
BP,
Not sure about your point in A and B of 1.
C – So, Inspiration was in the Original tongues? Excellent, we agree. (It wasn’t Syriac, but Aramaic)
D – We agree.
E – Scripture for this? You do realize, of course, that Spanish is growing as well as Chinese, right? Further, as far I know, no one speaks 16th century English.
2 – We are not talking about early Christians. We are talking about Christ and His Apostles. The ones who delivered the doctrine of the Church, supposedly lasting unchanged through the generations. If this is the case, then how can anyone support KJVOism as it was not known – and by your own words, not practiced by the early Church.
For the rest – could you give me Scripture for this, I assume, prophecy? Are you really saying that all tribes of humanity will have to speak 16th century English?
Aramaic is a name given to a dialect of Syriack which dates to early Byzantine times in the Middle East.
Syriack is the proper name for the language also called “Chaldee”.
There is a hypothesis which says that the language of Judea under the Romans at the time of Christ was “Aramaic”. However, besides Greek and Latin being spoken, it is clear that Hebrew was yet present with the Jews.
The language of Syriac came into Palestine from Syria after the fall of Jerusalem by the form of that dialect called Aramaic.
Thus, Aramaic and Chaldee, while both are Syriack, are two different dialective forms.
The KJB language is Biblical English, not limited to “sixteenth” or more technically “seventeenth century” forms. The KJB langauge is conducive to present English in its varying forms present on Earth today. There is no need to bring the world back to Jacobean English when the KJB speaks by the succouring of the Holy Ghost to believers today.
Actually, since the KJV 1611 is essentially an updated version of the Tyndale/Bishop’s both translated the 16th century, then yes, it is 16th century English.
The early Church did not support KJBOism just as the early Church did not support modern versionism.
To argue that Paul did or did not use the KJB is a foolish pursuit.
I believe the early Church does support the tenets which are expressed in KJBOism as opposed to those of modern versionism.
Can you possible show us the evidence of your claims? What I argue is that Paul did not limit himself to only the Hebrew or the Greek translation, but used both, and then some. Just as we would today. Unless, of course, can prove otherwise.
I have yet to see a translation endorsed in the pages of Scripture.
And again, is God an Anglophile?
Today, unlike Paul, we do not use Hebrew and Greek.
But God is not so weak that He cannot speak today.
People can use emotive terms like “anglophile”, but we find that the Bible promises to bring the Gospel to the Jews in another language (see Isaiah 28:11). I believe that the English language has been made common and is known by the Jews for the reason that God’s Word in English should be brought to them for their future salvation. I believe Romans 11 shows that we are supposed to bring our English Bible to the
Jews and the world.
Aramaic is a name given to a dialect of Syriack which dates to early Byzantine times in the Middle East.
Can you document your claim here about Aramaic?
Seeing that the language predates the Byzantine empire, I find this assertion hard to believe.
Fred
The Syriack language is very ancient. The problem is that nomenclature confusing.
Syriack was spoken in Babylon during the Babylonian Empire.
The Syriack of the Levant, called Syriac, in the Roman Empire, also found its way into Palestine from about 200 A.D.
A form of it was used by Jews in their religious writings. Also, in Babylon, the continuing form of Syriack came to be called “Chaldee”.
The dialects of Syriack which continued from Byzantine times to today are often called “Aramaic”, but this is confusing, in that they should be called “modern Syriack dialects”. The term “Aramaic” should be applied to the Rabbinic dialect of Palestine dating around 200 A.D. to 800 A.D.
There is a distinct difference between the form of Syriack used in old Jewish writings (e.g. in Daniel) and the form of Syriack used in Rabbinic writings from the Dark Ages. Syriack was used for OT Scripture, and the Chaldee for commentaries. The Aramaic use shows the development of Jewish religion far away from Old Testamentism, complete with charms and superstitions.
Syriac was used by Christians for the Bible (i.e. in Antioch) and for missionary activity eastward.
The language in Judaea in the time of Christ was not Syriack. The Jews did not speak in “Aramaic” at that time. Greek was the common language, but Jesus and the Jews did use Hebrew, as is evidenced by various New Testament references.
Again, what is your source for this information. Show me some linguistic scholarship that varifies your claims about the development of these languages.
Fred
The study on Syriack is based directly on encyclopædia entries.
The problem is that the nomenclature is confusing, so I have used traditional terms to describe the various developments.
Also, the Bible itself shows that Syriack was used in Babylon, and that Hebrew was used in the New Testament.
Actually, BP, we do use Hebrew and Greek today. Are you saying then, that the inspiration has left the original languages? Can you show me in Scripture?
I will not contend with you concerning the Jewish doctrine, wrong in of itself, but can you show me Scripture wherein you find such notions that we are to bring anyone the bible only in English?
Didn’t the Jews first receive the Gospel in Aramaic and then Greek? Further, that verse has been variously understood to mean things from either speaking in tongues or that God will make the Jews understand His justice through the drunken power of the Babylonians. Show me in Scripture why you think your understanding is better than these two.
Again, please use Scripture.
No, “we” do not use Hebrew and Greek today. Christians did many years ago. Some did in the Reformation times, for our benefit. Some did since, for our continuing benefit. But most Christians today do not know Hebrew or Greek, and I think that there is no need to either.
You will notice that when the Scripture prophesied of the Jews having the teaching coming to them in another tongue, and that in Romans 11 they are supposed to believe, that the Gospel coming in Greek (or in Hebrew as Paul preached in Acts 22) that the Jews did not receive the Gospel at that time. Therefore the promises of the prophecies have not yet been fulfilled. The Jewish Israel is not yet saved.
As for trying to apply Isaiah 28:11 to the Babylonians, you will note that commentators also point to the Romans, and you must realise that even Paul used the same passage in application to Christianity in his day in 1 Cor. 14:21.
I do not know anything that shows that the Gospel ever came in Aramaic to the Jews.
The Scripture does not prohibit the Gospel going to the Jews in English. Moreover, I think there are indications that the Gospel should go forth in English.
“For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.” (Zeph. 3:9).
One indication is that the true name of God is given in the pure English Bible.
BP,
“The Scripture does not prohibit the Gospel going to the Jews in English. Moreover, I think there are indications that the Gospel should go forth in English.
“For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.” (Zeph. 3:9).
One indication is that the true name of God is given in the pure English Bible.”
Elaborate on this, please.
Jason
Okay, BP, let me get this straight – ‘some’ did in the Reformation and ‘some’ have since then, all to the benefit, yet the ‘some’ who do today stand against God? When did the Inspiration of Scripture leave the original languages?
Actually, I am still unclear as to (1.) how you get the idea that Isaiah 28.11 connects to Romans 11 and (2.) why you think it is 16th Elizabethan English.
By the time of the NT, Hebrew was a dead language. The language of Palestine at the time was Aramaic. The Apostles preached in Aramaic, to the Jews.
I never said that the Gospel prohibits a translation into any language. Again, where is the Scripture for the Gospel to be carried only in one language, namely 16th century English.
And you think that English is a pure, heaven sent, language? Scripture for that please. Is is more likely that Zeph. 3.9 refers to the time when people no longer call on idols, but to God rightly. Nothing to do with language.
And, pray tell, what exactly is the pure name of God?
I have noticed that you have not been replying with Scripture, Bp.
Isaiah 28:11 shows that “another” non-Hebrew language is to be used to speak the truth to the Jews. If you look at Romans 11:11, 12, 25, 26, there are New Testament prophecies of the Gentile origin of end time conversion of the Jewish people.
The fact is that the Jews (generally) were not converted in the Apostolic era.
Many people approach Christianity as though it is weak. They approach Bible prophecy in the same way. But Bible prophecy shows that Christianity should be strong enough to reach and convert nations (e.g. Matthew 28:19, 20).
Those who try and limit the King James Bible to some past era are not understanding the perfection of the Word of God in English. This is because they approach all Bibles as if they are only “near enough”. But the KJB is not only the Bible of the seventeenth century, but is the Word of God today. It goes beyond the time period it was made in.
Also, it is interesting that English as a language is going far and wide in the world today, and that many Jews know it. On natural grounds, we can see that the King James Bible could go to the Jews.
So it is no great leap to consider that the pure language spoken of in Zephaniah 3:9 is talking about the English of the Bible. It is not talking about turning the world to speak Jacobean English. It is talking about many people in the world, including the Jews, coming to know normal English which is conducive to the use of the King James Bible.
If the King James Bible really is perfect, then it would be in line with God’s providence that in the latter day glory of the Church many would be coming to Christ through the KJB.
Also, when we read the Bible, we find that it is not merely speaking to the contemporary audience, but that references throughout the New Testament show that the Scripture should go to the Gentiles. Therefore, our understanding of the Old Testament should also facilitate this view.
When we look at Proverbs 30, for example, we are not just looking at God’s message to Judah under the Davidic kings. We are looking at something which is speaking to us, and to future developments by us. (By “us” I mean people who believe in the Church Restitution of the latter days, which was in some way taught by many Protestants who had the historicist view of prophecy.)
Proverbs 30 asks what God’s name is, and then shows where to find the answer. It says, “Every word of God is pure” and “Add thou not unto his words”. Therefore, there must be a time when God’s Word in one book is right, with no admixture. It is no chance that the name of God in the King James Bible is not promoted by modernists and their versions. I refer to the name JEHOVAH.
Furthermore, the promise of revival for the Jews is linked directly to knowing the name of God. The fall of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38 and 39 opens up a new adherence to the name of God. This, and many other Scriptures taken in concert shows that there must be a Gentile preaching to the Jews and to the world in the last days, and that historicist prophecy indicates that the true Church is not to be overtaken by defeat, but is to have great success.
In the natural, the King James Bible and English-speaking Christianity had moderate success in the past. Since God’s desire is to use the Gentiles for this new endeavour, we find many Old and New Testament passages which fit with the idea that a premium Gentile Bible must be used. “That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.” (Acts 15:17).
There are many other things to show in this matter, but I hope this brings enough to what I am standing for.
I thought I should comment that Will got inverviewed on my site regarding this KJVonly topic.
The first 3 points are up which I figure is enough to present some interest.
http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2009/07/king-james-onlyism-interview.html
http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2009/07/king-james-onlyism-interview-initial.html
http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2009/08/king-james-onlyism-interview-lower.html
Damian –
Quick technical correction.
2) The first few centuries of Christianity saw Christians predominantly use the LXX as their OT, which lead the the rejection of it by the Jews of that time.
The LXX was the bible of Hellenistic Judaism the same way that the NIV is evangelical and the NRSV is mainline bibles back then had ideologies and factions associated with them (think Greek and Aramaic speaking Jews from a century earlier in Acts). In the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-5) Hellenistic Judaism was essentially wiped out. The Jews didn’t reject the LXX because of its association with Hellenists, rather the factions that used the LXX didn’t survive they merged off into various non Jewish religions: Christianity, Stoicism, Paganism.
Rabbinic Judaism descending from Pharisaic Judaism which was primarily Aramaic speaking and when it relocated to Babylonia speaking Greek became much less important, that is Rabbinic Judaism association with the with Aramaic factions were even stronger. The Aramaic speaking Jews used the Hebrew or among less educated the Targum.
CD, thanks for the information.
what about the first part of the sentence? Is it safe to say the predominant Old Testament used by Christians in the first few centuries was the LXX?
Short answer — Yes
Long answer — Yes to what you meant not necessarily to what you said. Which is to say I’m going to nitpick two problems since I haven’t been around here long enough to know how detailed you all are getting. If I’m being too detailed I apologize in advance.
1) “Few centuries”. There is a shift where knowledge of Greek begins to fade particularly in the west. Further the Goths are almost all Christian and take to Christianity quickly. Most don’t know Greek at all. So by lets by the early 4th century it might very well have been that by say 300 the predominant “old testament” was one of the early gothic translations. A little earlier you have the problem of the Peshitta, mega popular (Aramaic translation from the Greek.
You are just catching the edge of this problem so if you had said “couple of centuries” then this goes away. If we pick where I definitely draw the line I’d say that by 370 the Ulfilas is probably the primary Christian bible (in terms of numbers of readers) assuming you will count Arians as Christians. If you won’t count Arians as Christians than no question it is the LXX until the Vulgate in 405.
2) “Old Testament”. Your heritage comes from the Western Catholic church. The notion of the Tanakh (Hebrew scriptures) old testament is Western. The Church fathers who rejected the primacy of Latin in the Eastern church have a different “pre new testament canon” that they call the Septuagint (or LXX). Which is to say Old Testament vs. Septuagint was political in the 4th century on up in Christianity and no one would have claimed the LXX was the Old Testament.
In particular none of the people who have limited their Jewish bible as narrowly as you mean by “old testament” would have used the LXX. Using the LXX implies a more inclusive vision.
I’m going to get really extreme and say that the Old Testament as you mean it is primarily a late 18th and early 19th century idea. It had a few supporters in the ancient world (like Jerome) but they were a minority.
So if you rephrase to, “Is it safe to say that up until Jerome the vast vast majority of Christians used the LXX or translations from the LXX (rather than the Hebrew) as their primary access to the books today in the Old Testament” I’d can give you an unqualified yes.
Again I don’t know if I’m being excessively anal, because I don’t know what the arguments are here.
BP,
You are not answering with Scripture. You are making a conjecture about Isaiah 28.11 which is not found in any other text of the bible. Further, you make this language, if it is a language, into 16th century English, failing to provide Scripture for that.
Not sure why you are making comments such as the ‘weak’ ones.
Again, show me in Scripture the doctrine of the KJVO, rather, your ideas that God will perfect one translation.
First, Jehovah is not God’s name. It is a very bad mistranslation into English. Only by ignoring this fact can you even hope to secure your doctrine.
I believe that you are in such doctrinal error that not even Will Kinny is liable to touch you, BP. It seems to me that you are stringing together very late ideas of ‘new revelation,’ ‘Christian zionism’, and ‘restoration,’ all of which come to us from the two centuries ago.
While this may suffice for you, I will hold to what the Apostles said, needing not to add to it.
I do not agree with your assessments or attempted characterisations of my beliefs.
BP and Polycarp,
The approach that is being used to “prove” that English is that pure language is sheer eisegesis.
There is nothing in the Scripture to imply such a thing.
BP, stop and think of what you’re saying, please. You are reading into the Scripture instead of out of it.
Scripture speaks for God, not for us. Let us not impose our voices upon it.
Jason, I completely agree with you. Coming from the KJVO camp, I could find no justification for making someone alien to the English language first learn English, and 16th century English at that, before they could read God’s pure and wonderful Word.
Polycarp,
You keep saying you come from the KJVO camp. Are you a former KJVO, or currently still KJVO?
Just wondering.
Thanks for coming on over and commenting.
Bob
Bad typo. change in bold.
In particular none of the people who have limited their Jewish bible as narrowly as you mean by “old testament” would not have used the LXX. Using the LXX implies a more inclusive vision.
Wow! So I leave for a weekend, and don’t immediately check back into my blog and…. 40 comments or so, already on a new post. Actually, I’m glad. Great exchange so far.
A few points that I’d like to interject if I may.
1) Saying the LXX didn’t exist doesn’t dodge the problem of Luke 4. There and in other places, Scriptural authors say something to the effect of “This is true, because the Bible says, ‘ZZZ’…” The “ZZZ” which is quoted is quoted as if it is what the text of the Bible (OT) actually says. But the Hebrew Masoretic text is not always identical to “ZZZ”. This is a problem for KJVO-ists. In Luke 4, it is specific enough to say the very scroll has these words written on it, and Jesus reads the words and sits down. Follow the discussion more at Damien’s blog on this. My point is simply that saying the LXX doesn’t exist is a convenient way to dodge this issue.
2) I am amazed at Bibleprotector’s use of Scripture. He reads modern events as if they fulfill Scriptures where it seems to jive. It seems to me that this is a careless manner of interpreting the Scripture and can lead to much error. He concludes the KJV is in view, but why couldn’t the NIV be in view? It has arguably a greater reach than the KJV has, and has more copies coming off the presses available for Jews than the KJV does. Same language: English. What in Scripture would lead us to say the NIV can’t be the translation that is supposedly prophesied?
3) The name of Jehovah is the singular mark that the KJV has God’s seal? What? The Jehovah’s Witnesses (Watchtower Society) regularly denigrate the KJV because it doesn’t use Jehovah when it translates the Hebrew title of God, except for 4 instances. The New World Translation has Jehovah, thousands of more times than the KJV does.
4) Welcome, Fred. You found us. If anyone wants a good laugh, and actually a very insightful series on the KJV Only problem, they should go to Fred’s blog: Hip and Thigh, and find his tin foil hat series. Maybe he can give us the link (or I can go searching…).
Blessings to all in Christ,
Bob Hayton
No, the name “JEHOVAH” is only one many internal and external evidences why I think the KJB is the Bible that should be for the last days.
BP, what evidence do you have that this is the pure name of God? Further, since the JW’s use it a great deal more than the KJV, shouldn’t that make the NWT the ‘it’ translation?
Also, do you realize that Jehovah is a bad transliteration of the Hebrew word(s)?
Fundyreformed Posts: A few points that I’d like to interject if I may.
1) Saying the LXX didn’t exist doesn’t dodge the problem of Luke 4.
Well, let’s take a look at it, OK?
Luke 4:16-19 compared with Isaiah 61:1-2
Did Jesus quote the Greek Septuagint?
Luke 4:16-19
“And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.”
Isaiah 61:1-2
“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; ”
Some Bible critics like to tell us that Jesus was quoting the Greek Septuagint version rather than expounding the Hebrew Scriptures. There are several problems with this view. There is no historical proof that there ever was such a thing as a widely accepted, authoritative, pre-Christian Septuagint version that Jesus could have been reading at this time. The Jews still spoke and read the Hebrew language.
Secondly, it was the post Christian Septuagint versions that were written to bring them in line with many New Testament quotes, not the other way around.
Thirdly, if Jesus were quoting the Septuagint, He didn’t do a very good job of it, because the LXX version also differs not only from the Hebrew texts, but also from the quote as it is found in the Greek New Testament.
In Luke 4:18 and 19, after “recovering of sight to the blind” the Greek N.T. reads “TO SET AT LIBERTY THEM THAT ARE BRUISED, To PREACH the acceptable year of the Lord.” In Greek this is: “aposteilai tethrausmenous en aphesei, keeruxai eniauton kuriou dekton”.
However the Septuagint version reads: “to CALL FOR an acceptable year of the Lord, AND A DAY OF RECOMPENSE, to comfort all that mourn.” In Greek this is: “KALESAI eniauton kuriou dekton, KAI HEMERAN ANTAPODOSEOS, parakalesai pantas tous penthountas.”
We can clearly see that the “quotes” from the so called Septuagint, do not match what is written in the New Testament. The so called Septuagint completely omits “to set at liberty them that are bruised”, changes “to preach” into “to call for”, and changes “day of VENGEANCE OF OUR GOD” to “and a day of recompense ” This is hardly what is recorded in the gospel of Luke chapter four, nor does it match the Hebrew text of Isaiah 61.
In addition to this, the words found in Luke 4:18 “TO HEAL THE BROKEN-HEARTED” are missing from versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, NWT, but are found in both the KJB and the Septuagint version. Those who insist on the use of the LXX have departed from it in this verse more so than the KJB.
The words “to heal the broken-hearted” are found in the Majority of all Greek texts and many uncial copies including Alexandrinus of the 5th century. The reading is also found in many ancient versions such as the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, the Georgian, Slavonic, and some Coptic Boharic manuscripts. It is also quoted by early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Hipplytus, Cyril, Theodoret, and Hillary.
However the usual suspects of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these precious words from Holy Writ, and so the NASB, NIV and ESV also omit them.
Any man or author is able to freely quote HIMSELF if he wants to. But no one has the right to freely quote another and put words into his mouth; this is bearing false witness. God can freely-quote or explain further what He means if He wants to, but we do not have the right to change His words.
A good Biblical example of God “quoting” something in different words is found in Genesis 18:12-13. Notice exactly what Sarah says and then how God “quotes” her. “Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, “After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?” And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, “Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?” God did not give an exact quote, yet He says this is what Sarah said. Do you see it?
John Gill remarks: “To set at liberty them that are bruised: these words are not in Isaiah 61 but…possibly from Isaiah 42:7,it being allowable for a reader in the prophets, to skip from place to place, which our Lord here did, in order to explain this passage more fully.”
The Lord Jesus Christ combined several Scriptural ideas and explained the sense of the passage in His own words – He was not quoting directly from a non existent Septuagint version.
This would be in accord with the Biblical pattern recorded in the days of Nehemiah. We read in Nehemiah 8:8: “So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, AND GAVE THE SENSE, and caused them to understand the reading.”
Luke stated that Jesus FOUND the PLACE where it was written. He did NOT say that Jesus QUOTED directly from the scroll, or that Jesus explicitly READ the scroll VERBATIM.
The Lord Jesus is merely explaining in further detail the sense of the passage as found in the Hebrew Scriptures, just like any good Jewish teacher would do for the sake of the congregation. He is not quoting from a non existent Greek Septuagint version.
Will K
Before I jump into Will’s comment, I forgot to give the link to Damien’s blog on Luke 4.
http://biblicism.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/christ-and-the-scriptures-part-iii-jesus-bibliology/
Sorry!
Bob, I grew KJV lighted upon Will’s Yahoo Group a long time ago. Once there, my eyes began to open. I actually give him full credit for opening my eyes to the KJVO myth.
Love the blog, Bob.
Thanks, Polycarp. It’s great to hear a bit of your story.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
Also, to be clear. I meant to give kudos to my fellow blog-mates. They’re doing a great job keeping things going around here. From time to time we all get busy, so its nice to have help from likeminded friends.
Will,
1) All the first half of your comment, like I had said in my first point, is largely irrelevant. Whether or not the LXX was read or used doesn’t change the issue with Luke 4.
2) Luke 4 does not give us the words Jesus spoke when it quotes the scroll. It gives us what was written. See it again in the KJV. Words in red are misleading here.
Notice this is Luke, the inspired author’s, commentary on what was in the book. Jesus found the place in the book where the following was written: “vs. 18-19″). The words in vs. 18-19 are what was in the book. The book was in the synagogue. The book was used by Jesus, who then went on to teach from it and to say: “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.” Apparently from vs. 22, Jesus spake other “gracious words”. And in the manner of synagogue teaching, the Bible would be read when standing up, and when seated, the passage would be explained. The place in the book where that was written, was apparently read, then Jesus sat down, then he gave his commentary.
So, vs. 18-19 is not commentary from Jesus. Instead it is what was written in the book found in that synagogue used by Jesus. Either this was 1) an early form of the LXX, 2) an Aramaic or Syriac version of the Hebrew or 3) an alternate Hebrew copy from a tradition that predates the Masoretic text. Those are the options. That the scroll in the synagogue conformed to the Hebrew Masoretic text which underlies the KJV is not one of those options.
This is a problem for your view, Will. The supposed non-existence of a pre-Christian LXX doesn’t make this problem go away.
Bob
So to clarify further, whether or not Jesus quoted the words found in Luke 4:18-19, their presence in Luke’s gospel teaches us several things:
1) a synagogue Jesus attended did not have a proper KJV Only approved Bible.
2) Jesus felt it was fine to use such a Bible.
3) God inspired Luke to quote from said Bible, with no implications in Luke’s gospel indicating that there was anything wrong with such a Bible.
4a) Concluding from this, we could say a translation that poorly captures the sense of the original text, is still a Bible worthy of use.
4b) And another conclusion could be that obeying the message of Scripture is more important than stressing over its exact wording.
4c) A third potential conclusion would be that the Masoretic text only approximates the Hebrew original, and the LXX and other translations help us get closer to the readings that were in use and used by Jesus and his Apostles in NT times.
Good summary, Bob. We’ve been on this exact topic, in detail, before and we both know how hard it is for people to see what is clearly there. Literal interpretation is thrown away in favor of circular reasoning, which is exactly what Will is using here. He starts with the conclusion: the KJV, with no scriptural support. Every argument after that supports that conclusion.
Also look at Will’s “argumentation”. I put that in quotes, not to mock, but to point to the fact that he ONCE AGAIN is copying and pasting from what he’s written already. This is fine in its place, but not when those things have already been discussed. For example, he gives 2 points: 1) there is no proof of a pre Christian LXX and 2) post Christian LXX put words of Christ/Apostles back into it to line up with it. Now why does he bring those two points up if they’ve already been discussed? It’s not like he’s elaborating on it. We’ve already refuted it. He repeats because he’s not listening to what we’re saying. Brother Will, please stop this copy and paste approach. Engage in what’s being said, please.
Finally, the fact that Luke’s rendering of what was written on the scroll is slightly different from modern versions of the LXX has no negative effect on our position. Why should those of us who accept the fact and usage of textual variants be afraid of textual variants?
Not to mention the fact that we have established the existence of the LXX.
For anyone to continue to insist on its non-existence is truly not a good way to discuss the issue.
It truly needs to be dealt with in good faith. Going ’round and ’round over the same issue gets us nowhere.
Good thoughts Damien.
Bob posts: “So, vs. 18-19 is not commentary from Jesus. Instead it is what was written in the book found in that synagogue used by Jesus. Either this was 1) an early form of the LXX, 2) an Aramaic or Syriac version of the Hebrew or 3) an alternate Hebrew copy from a tradition that predates the Masoretic text. Those are the options. That the scroll in the synagogue conformed to the Hebrew Masoretic text which underlies the KJV is not one of those options.
This is a problme for your view, Will. The supposed non-existence of a pre-Christian LXX doesn’t make this problem go away.
Bob
Hi Bob. Rather than believing it is a running commentary by the Lord, you instead to choose that it was One of Three alternative possibilities, none of which match either the LXX or the Hebrew texts. So, you have a possible 5 different texts, all differing from each other, and all “ballpark” inspired.
Nice work.
You still end up with no complete, inspired and 100% true Bible in any language, and that is your story and you are sticking to it.
You fellas can argue textual criticism, multiple versions, lost texts and translations etc. all day long and you still end up in the same place. There is NO inspired and 100% true Bible anywhere, and people are reading these non-inspired versions less and less.
By God’s sovereign mercy and grace I still believe The Book.
Happy Hunting,
Will K
Will,
When you say “You fellas can argue textual criticism, multiple versions, lost texts and translations etc. all day long and you still end up in the same place. There is NO inspired and 100% true Bible anywhere, and people are reading these non-inspired versions less and less,” You are not discussing this in good faith.
You cannot tell us what we believe when we have affirmed that we do indeed believe it.
You simply choose to frame the issue in your terms so that you can always have the last word. That is very childish, and is no Christian way to discuss things.
It is wrong to attribute liberal doctrines to us when we have all affirmed that we are Biblical Fundamentalists. We affirm that the KJV is inspired and inerrant. Nowhere does it lead us to immorality or false doctrine. We can say the same about the NASB and ESV.
Sadly, you refuse to be honest and admit that.
Please speak to us in good faith. There is no other way to have a meaningful discussion.
Cute, Will. Way to go. Nice way to respond to argumentation.
Would you like to interact with my post a little more? Did you see I explained that Scripture is stating the words are from the scroll.
Luke said “the place where it was written”, how is this Jesus’ commentary? Are you reading into Scripture your view, rather than letting it determine your view?
For all the reverence you have for the KJV, you would think you would stop and listen to what it actually says.
What leads you to conclude vs. 18-19 are Jesus’ commentary rather than the text that was written on the scroll?
Also, there are multiple other examples where a Scriptural author says “it stands written” or uses some other formula for introducing a quote from Scripture. The plain meaning of the text at these places is that the NT author is affirming that the OT Scripture actually stands written in the exact way he quotes it. If the quote is a free and loose quote, or if it follows the LXX or some other Greek or Aramaic translation, it still is presented as a quote. These places indicate that Scripture doesn’t place a particularly high regard for exact verbatim quotations, and if a Scripture is cited that doesn’t follow precisely to the letter the actual text of the Hebrew Scriptures, such a Scripture is fine to use.
Jason you have to understand Will’s vocabulary. His definition of “inspired, complete 100%, and inerrant” is not what we say when we claim it. We’ll say it was totally inerrant in the originals. He’ll point to the fact that the originals were likely never compiled into a single Book. He then says we must have a book that has the 100% complete inspired words, every word. This eliminates our view because we accept and use versions all of which differ from one another. So for me, it’s best to say that I believe God cannot err, and He did not err at all when He inspired the scriptures. He also providentially oversaw the preservation of those scriptures, but just as He preserves the church, the copies of those scriptures were not perfect in the verbal sense like the originals. Textual variation, the omission and insertion of phrases and verses, different punctuation, spelling, and capitalizations all came in over time. Textual criticism helps us to get back to what was likely the original, though we admit this is a human endeavor and not perfect. That’s why I say no manuscript tradition, no text-type, no version, and no translation is perfect (in the sense of the originals). They are perfect in the biblical sense, however, which means “able to meet all demands.” It is by faith that I believe, despite these differences (thousands of them being a moveable nu) do not alter the truth of God. We have a faithful and trustworthy corpus of truth, and no new discovery will change that.
So do we affirm inerrancy, as historic Christianity has? Yes. Do we affirm inspiration? Yes. Do we affirm scriptural authority? Yes. But what we mean by these things is not what Will does and therefore he has a point (albeit one of his own) when he says we don’t have One Book that we can say is the 100% complete inspired and inerrant words of God.
Of course, all Will is doing is picking one Bible out of thousands so that he can say he does believe it. There’s no scriptural support for his circular position, but at the end of the day he can always say that he believes the KJV is that complete inerrant book whereas we don’t have one. That’s how he wins his arguments.
Damien,
Yep, we need to state our case on inerrancy and infallibility, and do it plainly.
I do indeed understand Will. That is why I stated that he insists on framing the debate in his terms so as to have the last word.
The problem is that he is denying inerrancy and infallibility to the Scriptures more than those of us he is debating. You see, in his opinion there was no inerrant, infallible Bible for almost seventeen centuries. That is much more wrong than holding to the fact that there has been one all along.
Hmmmm…..I wonder now, who truly believes in preservation, then?
Damien, do you notice that there’s not been a whole lot of discussion of the LXX? It seems the way to discuss the LXX is to simply state that it doesn’t exist, then go off on a tangent about other things. I thought I wrote about the LXX?????????
I have a Question…
if: “we find that the Bible promises to bring the Gospel to the Jews in another language (see Isaiah 28:11). I believe that the English language has been made common and is known by the Jews for the reason that God’s Word in English should be brought to them for their future salvation. I believe Romans 11 shows that we are supposed to bring our English Bible to the Jews and the world.”
then: are we talking about some form of linguistic dispensationalism?
Was Greek not the universal language in the first couple of centuries? Why not Latin under the Roman Empire? How then is Isaiah 28:11 made to be some far-reaching 21st century dispensational linguistic prophesy?
What if, in say, 500 years ‘ebonics’ becomes the universal language?
Isn’t that kind of like reading the news paper today and running to scripture to see if we can find a Prophesy today’s headline fulfils? Just because english is the language of commerce today why should we believe english is the tongue of Isaiah 28:11?
Great point, Persifler. With the LXX and the Greek NT, there was a universal language Bible. It probably read similarly to Codex B. With Latin, the Vulgate was near universal. Soon there will be more believers that have Chinese as their native language than English. Will they use Is. 28:11 as a proof text for some new Chinese Version Only movement?
Ebonics!
I luv it bruthah!
As an aside it is actually far far easier translate the bible into Ebonics than into the standard dialect. I’ve argued that for bible translation we should borrow their aorist tense:
http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2008/07/bible-translation-ebonics-and-aorist.html
“It is wrong to attribute liberal doctrines to us when we have all affirmed that we are Biblical Fundamentalists. We affirm that the KJV is inspired and inerrant. Nowhere does it lead us to immorality or false doctrine. We can say the same about the NASB and ESV.
Sadly, you refuse to be honest and admit that.
Please speak to us in good faith. There is no other way to have a meaningful discussion.”
Anybody whose mind is so far gone as to make such an absurd and ridiculous statement that the KJB, NASB and ESV are all inspired and inerrant in spite of the fact that they differ so radically from each other both textually and in meanings in hundreds of verses has completely lost the ability to think clearly. Their mind has turned to mush and nothing will ever convince them otherwise.
Such a person says with a straight face that all these are inspired and inerrant.
“MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”?
The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading – ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV), or even “32 years old…reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible!; 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV,NET), or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read THREE (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, NET, Holman or THIRTY from the Syriac NASB, RSV, ESV), or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, ESV) or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV).
Gentlemen, at this point, Will has turned to insults. As Fred, I am sure, can attest, it will only go down hill from here. He will copy and paste until he declares you bible agnostics and leave.
Will,
Maybe this will help. I also notice you have turned away from our argument on Luke 4. This is kind of like the Jehovah’s Witness tactics. They just keep harping on their issues and bring up their texts and never bother addressing a Scriptural argument that is brought up.
Anyway….
Here is my take on inerrancy.
Original Hebrew / Aramaic / Greek Scritpures = Inspired and Inerrant
Copies in Hebrew / Aramaic / Greek = slightly imperfect presentations of the Inspired and Inerrant Scripture which over time become less and less reliable the further removed they are from the Original
Texts (think TR, WH Text, NA27 Text, H-F Majority Text) = human (and thus imperfect) attempts at sifting through the imperfections in copies, aiming for as close a representation as possible of the Original Text
Translations into other languages of Texts or Copies = slightly imperfect attempts at presenting the Originals into a receptor language. A perfect Translation would still nevertheless be inadequate in that it is only true to the Original but cannot convey every sense and nuance the Original had in the Original language.
So different Translations will be different and will disagree with each other. None of them are inerrant as all are less than the inerrant Original. All are human, non-inspired work.
God has promised that the Original Scriptures will be preserved in such a way that is adequate for human use and the perpetuity of His Church. In the abundance of manuscript copies and early translations we have, all the words of God are to be found. In many places we have a choice between two, three, or more different readings. One of those is likely the original reading. In God’s providence these places with alternate readings do not greatly affect the overall teaching of Scripture.
Most Modern Translations, the KJV included, are good attempts to render a Text into the English language. As such, the Original inspired Scripture shines through them. The slight imperfections and deficiencies of these are not so great as to obscure the Word. As such they are derivatively inspired so to speak.
As for your list of difficult to decide places, how are we to decide? Does God promise a perfect translation to arise in 1611 which will settle these questions? No. In fact, there are numerous differences between the 1611 KJV and later editions. We got into this aspect in another post. How can you decide which KJV edition is the correct one? What do those who lived before the KJV 1611 have? A deficient Bible? No. Scripture never teaches by example or precept that a Bible which is incomplete or not completely word-perfect and entire, is somehow inadequate. For most of the last 2000 years, the average Bible believer has not had access to an entire copy of all 66 books, much less a copy of one specific text that today some would say is the only perfect text. In fact, many of the believers today do not have a perfect translation in their language. Some have no translation available in their language. Are they totally hampered in their faith without a perfect word Bible?
Your arguing is flawed. You have not made your case from Scripture. You continue to avoid the discussion when it suits you, and rather bring up new issues or copy and paste new info from other posts of yours. This is not speaking well for your side of the debate.
= human (and thus imperfect)
This above listed doctrine differs very much to my own view, which is:
1. Christians can do well and be right before God, doing the will of God.
2. God can providentially work in history to give a perfect Bible, and go so far as to make sure that it is free from printing mistakes. “He is the Rock, his work is perfect” (Deut. 32:4a). God has not failed in His ability to work in the earth throughout history, and in specific events and projects.
3. The Church is supposed to be walking properly before the return of Christ, according to Eph. 4:13 and 5:27.
Why make “human weakness” great than God’s power to fulfil? Why make “error” greater than God’s actual superintendence in history?
I have another question…
Is it intellectually honest to compare between translations? In so doing you hold one to be the standard on withch the others are judged.. which is dishonest. Each translation must stand on its own against the original texts as close to the original (inerrent, inspired) autographs, as we are able to.
Persifler,
I wrote on that here.
http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/bible-comparison-charts-the-real-issue/
You are correct in questioning that tactic.
Each translation must stand on its own against the original (inerrent, inspired) autographs, as we are able to.
As far as I understand Will’s argument you are begging the question. Will it taking a highly skeptical view of the state of the manuscripts. That is we can’t compare to the originals because we don’t have anything that genuinely approaches the originals. What we have in the original languages is massively corrupted. In other words (and forgive me for putting words in Will’s mouth) what we have are:
1) ancient Greek manuscripts of the NT altered by Gnostics and Arianist
2) ancient Latin and aramaic texts which are often incompetently translated.
3) An collection of LXXs which conflict with each other and many of which were altered to confirm to the theology of long dead Jewish and quasi-Christian sects
etc… What originals are you going to compare to? Will’s whole point is there are no originals, they didn’t survive. We aren’t able to compare to the originals because we aren’t able to reconstruct the originals. All we can do is compare one corrupted text to another and guess unless we believe that God distinguished and corrected one of these texts himself.
CD,
You are correct.
The problem is that we cannot abandon our position to Will. He is wrong. We must maintain our position.
Will must bring forward irrefutable proof of his position, and must do that without his cut and paste approach. He must write to us one point at a time and present his case.
He must also provide Scriptural justification that God has determined to preserve His Word in one language, English, and present that to us as well.
Sadly, that has not happened. Neither will it happen, because he cannot do so. Thus we come to the point of straw men and ad hominem arguments.
CD,
Will’s is a pessimistic view of the evidence. There is every reason to believe we can come very close to the originals with the textual evidence we have at hand. We cannot come infallibly to them, however, but we can come quite close. In fact, in a majority of the NT, we have no question as to the original because there are no credible textual variants to speak of.
This view of the state of textual criticism, and the likelihood of our recovering the original reading of the text, is an agnostic view championed by the likes of Bart Ehrman. Well, KJV Onlyists have this view too, but then claim the KJV is a perfect, error-free translation of the originals. The problem is there is no credible basis for their faith in the KJV.
I’ll stand by my question of intellectual honesty. No one answered the implication I made: To be comparing between modern translations is dishonest because at some point whether explicitly or implicitly one will settle on one translation being the standard the others are judged by.
My statement is simply, instead of proof-texting between translations you have to go back, as close a you can to the original autographs and compare to the original language at least and let that be the standard.
Since I am not a Greek or an Hebrew Scholar I cannot speak to specific extant texts. Hence, my question regarding modern english translation comparisons. I know it is dishonest to compare a literal-word-for-word translation such as KJV, NASB, or ESV to a thought-for-thought translation such as the NIV. (that is apples and oranges) Each translation must be compared to the extant texts from which they are translated.
I have not accused anyone of intellectual dishonesty but have questioned the idea in general if anyone feels I have attacked them then I sincerely apologize.
Persifler,
Go check out my post that I linked to. I think you’ll find the answer.
Persifler,
I agree with you. One cannot arbitrarily set up one modern translation as the only one to compare others too.
Albeit with the KJV it is based on the TR and other translations beside the NKJV aren’t. So two different texts are in view. So really we have to compare those texts to the textual data we have. That comparison clearly concludes against the TR. We know the history of its formation (quickly thrown together by Erasmus), the scope of its basis (a few Greek texts, without benefit of the later study of hundreds and thousands of other Greek texts). There are manifest errors in it, and several places where it sides with a very small and seemingly unimportant minority of texts against all the other witnesses we have.
Anyway, you bring up a good point and I don’t think you were out and out condemning others with your statement.
Blessings, brother.
Bob
Jason,
I checked it out last night after I posted. Thanks for the info. That answered my question. I still don’t understand all the posturing about the existence of original, inspired, scriptual texts. Am I reading these posts correctly, that there are those who do not believe that there ever were such original autographs??? That is the same type of argument about knowledge and how can we know anything… how can we trust that we know anything at all? Such reductionism and regressionism leads only to absurdity.
If we don’t have the original sheet music for a piece of popular music do we question the score written in our song book on that basis? Or it was originally written in a flat but we play it in a sharp are we not playing the same song? Nothing is harmed in the message of the song only the key it is played in. If we miss a word or mispronounce a word does that mean we don’t essentially have the original song? Yet we accept that there was an original score that was written for the song, and that original was written by the author who was inspired in the first place. So I don’t understand why or how one can deny original autographs once existed?? Especially when such NT originals were referenced in other NT letters. ??
Persifler,
They acknowledge that the originals existed, but do not acknowledge that they exist today in ANY form at all.
You analogy of the song is a good one, I think.
Jason –
Persifer asked a specific question, whether it is intellectual honest to compare between translation rather than originals. If whether there are originals or not is a point a question I don’t see how that isn’t begging the question. Regardless of what your position is you shouldn’t assume it, during a debate; that is I do think you have to “abandon your position” during a debate. You cannot assume any points in question otherwise you are at the “is so” / “is not” type discussion.
Will has been quite explicit, that by 150 the scriptures were substantially corrupted. Which means that all the existent Greek originals would be corrupted. I think to have this conversation you have to come from a place where there is no assumption that comparison to originals is possible, if you assume such a thing were possible then Will is wrong by assumption and there is nothing to discuss. He isn’t really coming from that much of a different place than say FundyReformed’s list except:
1) He holds the copies are even less perfect due to ideological biases.
2) An additional supernatural act of revelation occurred in the construction of the KJV. That is this is a distinguished translation because it is not just a translation but there was additional revelation.
Further I’m not sure why the burden should be “irrefutable proof” for him while the other side has to meet a burden (I assume of) “not outside the realm of possibility” rather than “more probable” for both sides.
As an aside, accusing your opponent of not being intellectually honest is borderline ad hominem. I don’t think it is helpful to the conversation.
CD,
You make some good points.
My reference to intellectual dishonesty is due to the ongoing conversation here, and how Will has responded, or refused to respond to us.
At the same time, I appreciate the corrective and will certainly take it into consideration as I respond here.
The problem with Will’s stance is that his definitions of “corrupt”, “infallible”, and “inerrant” are all somewhat different than what I would accept.
I suppose we may need to move on to establishing a vocabulary for this blog
Thanks again for your comments. I hope you stick around.
Jason
Please define corrupted. Is the alleged corruption such that essential doctrine is corrupted or is the alleged corruption in spellings of places, and names and other non-essentials?
Persifler,
I believe there were originals, and that the copies were not totally corrupted as to doctrine. There are some agnostics who hold that the copies were so standardized and edited as to be worthless, pretty much. They claim the church doctored the copies much like Islam edited the Quran copies.
KJV Onlyists claim the “earliest and best” manuscripts are from a corrupt Alexandrian line which has many doctrinal corruptions. Some claim the Byzantine manuscripts were pure and God preserved them and led the KJV eventually to come from that line. Others say God supernaturally guided the KJV translators in picking from the available copies to come to just the right words.
Hope that helps somewhat. Thanks for asking some good questions. Blessings in Christ,
Bob
I think they would say essential doctrine is weakened, called into question. A subtle undermining of the faith in hundreds of places.
FundyReformed –
Well I know you’ve read Comfort’s book so I’m going to step up a notch.
Will’s is a pessimistic view of the evidence. There is every reason to believe we can come very close to the originals with the textual evidence we have at hand.
Lets back off for a second. Based on textual criticism why would you reject a the very pessimistic view. Lets do Luke for example. Your typical NA27 author
1) Believes in Q
2) Believes in the Narrative of Infancy as the origin of Luke 1-3
3) May very well agree with Knox hypthosis as to the origin of Ur-Lukas (Gospel of the Lord)
Which is to say a typical NA27 author may very well doubt there was an “original” Luke in Greek. Luke is a middle – late 2nd century construction. Such people aren’t ignorant of the evidence. The only way you are going to get back to “originals” would by higher criticism not just lower, that is not just textual evidence but rather constructing and attempting to verify an entire history of Luke’s construction. Naive methods won’t get you much further than we are today.
We cannot come infallibly to them, however, but we can come quite close. In fact, in a majority of the NT, we have no question as to the original because there are no credible textual variants to speak of.
I have some serious doubt about that. Take for example Bultmann’s decomposition of John or Walter Schmithals decomposition of Corinthians. That’s based on internal evidence not textual variants. Even if you were to assume the NA27 were perfect there is good internal evidence which points to it not being the “original”. Now I understand I’m on a fundamentalist blog and I normally wouldn’t go this far but like I said I know you are familiar with Comfort and Will is essentially taking the position of massive corruption.
This view of the state of textual criticism, and the likelihood of our recovering the original reading of the text, is an agnostic view championed by the likes of Bart Ehrman.
Well yeah. As far as I can tell Will is to the left of Ehrman on the speed at which Greek scripture was corrupted. As an aside though don’t forget that Ehrman is (at least prior to becoming a media celebrity) a major player in the construction of the NA27 and the ECM (NA28 essentially) looks like another round of substantial changes.
Well, KJV Onlyists have this view too, but then claim the KJV is a perfect, error-free translation of the originals. The problem is there is no credible basis for their faith in the KJV.
I would disagree, at least I found it reasonably credible, internally consistent.
I wrote my conclusion yesterday where I summed up my opinion
http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2009/08/king-james-onlyism-interview-concluding.html
FundyReformed –
I wanted to break off this one point.
At least as far as I can tell Will is asserting that the KJV is not properly a translation at all. In his theory additional revelation occurred. There is information in the KJV over an above what is in the Greek and Hebrew texts they were working with. They perfectly choose when to go with the Latin over the Greek, they perfectly choose when to go with a liturgical reading (which goes back to the old Latin) over the Hebrew or Greek, even their apparent mistranslations or effects of older Lexicons are really divine corrections.
In other words their relationship to the originals is wholly unlike what the NIV or the ESV are doing. The “translators” are under supernatural influence, which is to say they aren’t really translators but rather prophets.
CD,
That is a long stretch to believe that, isn’t it?
After all, the translators themselves did not think of themselves as doing any more than improving upon an old translation.
See my notes within the text of the Translators to The Reader http://pastoralmusings.com/2009/05/28/the-king-james-version-translators-preface-to-the-reader/
I’m beginning to wonder if there is actually a way to reason with someone such as Will. Do we have any common ground on which to meet and discuss the issue? How can we dialogue? Is it worth our time to do so? It seems we get nowhere, and he gets nowhere.
That is a long stretch to believe that, isn’t it?
I think so. Yeah I think it is much easier to believe that the KJV translators were:
1) Vastly more concerned with artistry than modern translators. So they were able use great artistic ideas from the Geneva, from the Vulgate, for the liturgy and create a compelling work
2) Pretty good but not exception in terms of linguistic skill
3) Late enough that there were some resources but their quality was far worse than what would exist in 200-300 years later.
And thus produced a first rate artistic work and a second rate translation which stood the test of time because of the artistry. But as the majority of American Christians go to non liturgical churches the focus is becoming accuracy not artistry so the translation is opening up.
Yes I think that’s much more likely than the belief that the KJV is supernatural in some sense.
I’m beginning to wonder if there is actually a way to reason with someone such as Will. Do we have any common ground on which to meet and discuss the issue?
Maybe, the theory of corruption. The corruption evidence we have moves in the direction of the TR and the KJV not away from it; which is why modern translation are moving away from it. If you want to argue the KJV represents the “originals” you have a a timeline problem on the manuscripts, what got corrupted when, by whom and why? Manuscript by manuscript by manuscript try and reconstruct in accordance with his theory. I think the theory will fall apart on the details, you will end up with schools that are introducing one type of corruption taking out another verse with the same type. The putting the original back in. That’s a heck of a lot of work though. Moreover I don’t think they are attached to a particular timeline so you might have to go back and forth a few times.
By and large though were I think the battle is really won is not on the evidence front it comes on the linguistic front. Behavior changing belief. People raised in NA congregations begin to think in terms of “my translation says X”, they look at their bibles and their translator notes like “some versions say A while others say B”. This starts to seem natural. Word for word perfection becomes alien and too far outside the mainstream.
CD,
I am aware that the editors of NA27 are not evangelical Bible believers. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that most of them or all of them, share Ehrman’s skepticism to reconstructing the original.
I hold to a reasoned eclecticism, and other scholars have not abandoned the quest of coming as close to the originals as possible. NA27 is good in that it tries on a reading by reading basis to account for the evidence at hand fairly. Within the variants included, I would guess most of the original readings of Scripture are contained either in NA27′s text or in the textual apparatus. Still we haven’t arrived, and there is a place for continued study and even a genealogical study of the development of the text.
I reject a 2nd century date for Luke, and deconstructions of the text based on internal considerations. Yes I am fundamentalist enough to do that.
I also understand Will and his side is in a defensible position with 100% certainty. My problem is they have to appeal to new revelation, and the evidence for that new revelation I find lacking. An orthodox handling of the Protestant canon of Scripture does not lead to that view. The authors of this blog come from such an orthodox Protestant basis.
Lack of 100% certainty is not the same as 100% uncertainty. KJV Only adherents often imply the opposite however.
I appreciate your involvement, but I gather you are an ex-evangelical who tries to speak rationally to people like us. I share your concern about harsh cultic like church circles, and the need for church discipline and accountability, but I remain a Bible believer.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
NA27 is good in that it tries on a reading by reading basis to account for the evidence at hand fairly.
I agree, and does with a slight conservative bias which is appropriate IMHO. The UBS process IMHO is one of the best examples of successful ecumenicalism we have.
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that most of them or all of them, share Ehrman’s skepticism to reconstructing the original…. I reject a 2nd century date for Luke, and deconstructions of the text based on internal considerations. Yes I am fundamentalist enough to do that.
It doesn’t shock me at all that you believe in a unified 1st century Luke, That’s basically the almost universal opinion among evangelicals so I’d expect that. And I’m glad you admit most of the UBS/NA guys probably would be on the other side, that you that will save time. My point was that it is entirely possible to be quite faithful to the evidence and believe we are very far away from recovering the “originals”. In other words you believe we are close to the originals not because of the textual evidence but because you have other beliefs. That is Will’s beliefs are neither contradicted nor supported by textual criticism.
also understand Will and his side is in a defensible position with 100% certainty. My problem is they have to appeal to new revelation,
How common is Will’s position relative to David Clouds? I had thought that most of the them believed in a doctrine of “preservation” though similar to David Cloud. I.E. the KJV is a good translation of the TR and the TR/MT is preserved.
and the evidence for that new revelation I find lacking.
What kind of evidence would prove revelation? This is where the philosophical case and the KJV being blessed comes in.
An orthodox handling of the Protestant canon of Scripture does not lead to that view. The authors of this blog come from such an orthodox Protestant basis.
I’m honestly not sure where the orthodox position lies. When Protestantism was created it existed in a world that had entirely different presuppositions about the nature of the church and its history than evangelicals do today. The “orthodox Protestant position” seems to me to be in conflict with the position held by the majority of today’s orthodox protestants.
I’d say there really isn’t one. I think the KJVonly movement in the 1970s offered an approach that was rejected quickly. A total rejection of text criticism. And today it is an artifact and a niche.
What’s the orthodox position? You are asserting that our best source for the originals is a book that believes the bible evolved like any other ancient book and there was no divine preservation while upholding a doctrine a divine preservation. That strikes me as neo-evangelical rather than fundamentalist, we can look at the modern world and separate the wheat from the chaff.
So I don’t know what is the orthodox position at this point? I don’t even really know.
I appreciate your involvement, but I gather you are an ex-evangelical who tries to speak rationally to people like us. I share your concern about harsh cultic like church circles, and the need for church discipline and accountability, but I remain a Bible believer.
Understood. And yes that’s pretty much it. I’m glad we are speaking rationally. Generally fundamentalist forums are closed, you have to sign a strong statement of faith and thus I can’t speak at all when it comes to these topics. That’s why I found it useful to be able to interview Will for my blog. My readers in general don’t usually get to hear what fundamentalists actually believe on most topics.
The whole thing looks like a case of “If you can’t deal with history, deny it”. You see it all the time. Creationists, for example, believe anything they hear that agrees with their initial conclusions. It is considered true if it supports what they believe to be true. In the KJVO debate, doesn’t matter what history says. It is just as made up as anything else that doesn’t fit into their arguments.
4) Welcome, Fred. You found us. If anyone wants a good laugh, and actually a very insightful series on the KJV Only problem, they should go to Fred’s blog: Hip and Thigh, and find his tin foil hat series. Maybe he can give us the link (or I can go searching…).
I have known about your site for sometime. In fact, if you will note in my sidebar at my blog, I have you linked. I would drop by here now and again, but I never saw any activity. That has obviously changed, so I will have to return more often.
Thanks Fred. I forgot we’re using the same url I’ve had for a while. We redesigned the place as a normal blog, and moved my resource site to another url.
Thanks again for dropping by.
BTW, do you remember Steve Lonetti? I’m currently involved in the leadership team of a church plant in St. Paul that he is pastoring.
I am of the persuasion that the KJV is the only Inspired Word of God for the English-speaking people. I have had a similiar debate over this same topic (surprisingly NOT from a long indoctrinating post, but from a simple one-sentence “status update” I posted on FaceBook). The original status accrued over 90-something comments – which I copied&pasted into a note on FaceBook, and that note generated over another 90-something comments.
I posted the original status and comments on my old blog http://wheresinabounded.blogspot.com/ if you care to take a look at what was going on with that.
~Heather
http://redemptionjournal.wordpress.com/
I would guess that some variation of Will’s position is the more common one in KJV Onlyism. Either the KJV is “inspired” in the sense that it corrects the Greek or is superior to it, or it is advanced revelation. In either case it is perfect, which BibleProtector seems to imply. In all of these variations some sense of God having put his stamp of approval on the KJV so that we can confidently rest assured of the KJV translator’s textual conclusions. This is the predominant view.
David Cloud’s view, is similar to this but different. The TR is what is held to, but the specific TR in mind is that form the KJV translators used. This one ostensibly is a preservation view, but Cloud and most TR Onlyists I know of say the TR is completely error free or else they say there are no mistakes or errors in the KJV. So it really is quite similar to Will’s view without the overt emphasis on revelation.
Orthodoxy would be to me an adherence to the original fundamentals of the faith, salvation by grace alone, that sort of thing. I was using it more in the sense of an orthodox handling of Scripture, interpreting it carefully in a grammatical historical way. I think BP and Will are violating that principle.
At the end of the day, I am not having faith in textual criticism. I have faith in God’s preservation of His word. I just don’t see God promising a divinely perfect preservation. The evidence we have leaves us with much confidence that we have substantially the text of Scripture as given. Internal Biblical evidence also sways me to not expect word-perfect precision as being needful for Scripture to have sufficient authority.
Thanks to, CD, for being honest on where you’re coming from. We aim to keep things rational, but we are believers here. We don’t apologize for a Bible bent in our reasoning.
Bob
Bob –
Very interesting so your basic argument with the NA people is that you believe you freely use their work even though they themselves are not believers at least in the orthodox sense? If I have that right, may I ask why? In other words I frequently hear evangelicals but especially fundamentalist reject bible studies, archeology, history…. because it came from “liberals”. Your position seems to be one of “we should examine their output on a case by case basis and use as much as we can”. Do I have that right? And if I do have that right how is that not consistent with the position of the moderates not the fundamentalists during the fundamentalist-modernist controversy?
Please don’t get me wrong I completely applaud where you are coming from but I find it odd to see someone strongly asserting fundamentalism, taking these positions while understanding their implications.
As far as Cloud it was my understanding that he did not object to Pickering’s Majority Text translation, or Jay Green. If Cloud does defend the TR and the KJV but doesn’t argue for special revelation then how does he defend against the “mistranslations” argument that is the KJV isn’t even a particularly good translation of the TR?
Are you saying that at this point you consider a grammatical historical approach a requirement for orthodoxy or are you saying that orthodoxy has always supported a grammatical historical approach or something else?
I get that. I’m just learning from you how this plays out in terms of specifics. This is a great conversation
CD,
I don’t consider textual criticism to be higher criticism. Now it may be that the distinction is becoming more blurred, and as such evangelicals themselves will have to be more careful in their use of the resultant texts. Already, in the evangelical Bible translations, they don’t uniformly fall in line with the NA readings.
As for using the NA work on a case by case basis, I think evangelicals have done a similar thing with modernist and liberal theologians and other scholars all along. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there’s a difference between using material and zealously attending their schools. The New Evangelicalism did repudiate some actual misemphases in the original fundamentalist movement. However, there was some aspects of the New Evangelical agenda that I don’t agree with.
As for myself, I would consider myself a historic fundamentalist in the sense of a commitment to fundamental beliefs that are worth being somewhat militant about. But that militancy isn’t going to be a cookie cutter separation for me.
I have left the indy fundy movement altogether, and am in what could be considered New Evangelical circles. I think the IFB movement still has some good churches and good groups, but mostly it is too rigid and has many pitfalls which damage people too quickly.
I think a careful interpretation of scripture is a hallmark of the modern concept of being an evangelical. Inerrancy or a view of Scriptural authority at least, is going to make one careful in handling the text. Grammatical Historical isn’t the same as a dispensationalist “literal” or “plain” interpretative method, to me. It describes what the Reformers themselves championed over and against a very loose allegorical or analogical method. One can be orthodox without this method, I probably chose the wrong word in describing it. But playing extremely loose with Scripture and making it support your doctrine of advanced revelation or what have you, seems to be more befitting of medieval tactics and not evangelical. Maybe my opinion is wrong on this, as there certainly are many charismatic interpretative schemes that own the name evangelical but aren’t too careful with Scripture.
Anyway, good discussion.
Persifler –
That’s actually not true. And a good example is the NA the TR and the MT are all using the comparison between manuscripts approach without generally assuming any one manuscript is the standard the others are judged by. The vast vast majority of the time what you have is something like:
1) Almost all the manuscripts agree say it has A
2) Another manuscript has B and B looks like a spelling error or a flipping two words or a slip of the pen
3) Another manuscript has C and C looks like….
4) Another manuscript has D which is a genuine variant but whose origin is obvious, like a standard margin note that got copied into the main text.
And that’s where you are begging the question. You are making an assumption that the Greek texts we have are fairly close to the Greek originals, that there was not huge corruption. Will is arguing that the Old Latin manuscripts are much closer to the original form than the Greek manuscripts we have. Assume for a moment that every copy of the bible disappeared except for:
1) The New World Translation (Jehovah witness bible)
2) The Geneva Bible in German
You have to construct a translation into English do you just use the NWT or do you try and use the Geneva and your knowledge of the biases of the NWT writers to correct the NWT and put out a translation based on the NWT as modified by the Geneva?
In general Will is comparing the translations at the dynamic level. He isn’t disagreeing with any translation’s clausal structure of subtleties (mostly). He is arguing they are in outright conflict with one another at the most basic level of meaning.
* Jenny went to the store
* Going to the movies was Jenny’s aim
There are strong structural differences in those sentences. But there is also a clear conflict in store vs. movies. There are a lot of examples where those are the sorts of translation differences one sees. The differences are apparent in English.
Just to pick an example from the debate on my blog Romans 15:19 (I’m including non Greek as well):
TEXT: “in the power of the Spirit of God,”
EVIDENCE: p46 S Db P Psi 614 1241 2495 Byz Lect syr(p,h)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn TEV
NOTES: “in the power of the Spirit,”
EVIDENCE: B
TRANSLATIONS: ASVn NASV NIV
NOTES: “in the power of the Holy Spirit,”
EVIDENCE: A D*,c G 33 81 104 630 1739 1881 lat vg syr(pal) cop
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NEB
Besides Will is writing for a general audience. If you do in fact have an opinion on these manuscripts then you are already likely outside the KJVonly camp for life.
On this, CD, Will would add an assumption. He would say we can’t infallibly know which reading is true without letting the KJV be our guide.
My counter position would be, while we can’t absolutely know, we can adequately know. We can settle on one of two or three choices, while keeping the other choices in mind if our level of confidence is lower with this variant. We then have all the evidence, we most likely (based on confidence in God’s preservation) have the correct reading there, we just have to examine on internal and external evidence the likelihood for one reading over another.
Will and his kind go further and point to readings like this and claim to find a pattern where the KJV has better readings and maintains a purer theology behind those readings than the other versions. This is a biased reading of the evidence. There are many variants which are of purer theology in the other versions as opposed to the KJV. Those are overlooked by these KJV Onlyists. Add to that, there is actually a great likelihood that some of the KJV readings are the result of orthodox corruption of the text, rather than unorthodox corruption.
To arbitrarily choose the KJV to compare all translations to, begs the question as to which text is correct. In reality all the translations and texts need to be compared to the textual evidence at hand. The KJV doesn’t purely stick to the TR, and the TR itself doesn’t adequately account for the textual evidence. We can conclude all of that is in line with God’s supernatural work, or we can say it is a good but not perfect translation.
Bob –
I don’t either. I consider it (by definition) to be lower criticism. My point was that higher criticism was probably the #1 issue on the fundamentalist / modernist controversy and lower criticism was (at least at the time) seen as a kissing cousin. I think the NIV more than anything else changed that by providing a conservative bible which was:
1) updated in terms of language
2) mediating not formal
3) based on the NA
I would agree. Evangelicals take a “use what you can from liberalism approach” while Fundamentalists sought complete separation.
OK that makes sense then if you identify yourself as x-fundamentalist and currently a right wing evangelical. Were you an KJVonlyist when you were fundamentalist or only picked it up around the time you switched?
I would actually argue it is across all of Christianity and even deeper across society. Even in areas like law we have moves towards restricting judicial authority, doctrines of original intent / original construction…. Our readings of just about everything has become more literal and less poetic. We teach more math and science and less literature and art than we used to in public schools.
I think Protestants are more literal minded. But frankly I’d say the liberals tend to be more literal about scriptural and less willing to use allegorical interpretations. That’s why they tend to talk in terms of schools of thought, because they refuse to harmonize. The classic Isaiah 7:14 is a good example of where evangelicals want to toss out historical critical, grammatical, literal…. and go with a very loose reading. That’s why I was surprised by your comment.
CD,
I am a former KJV Onlyist. I used to be of a TR Only position similar to Cloud’s position.
Some of the earlier posts on this blog detail the stories of the contributors. We have all broken away from KJV Onlyism, to one degree or another. We respect that version but are not KJV Only. Our blog addresses the issue, and we try to convince people that KJV Onlyism is not the best position to hold.
Bob
Bob –
It comes down to what you mean by adequately know. This is a good passage because up until the P46 was discovered (1931) Power of the Spirit of God was often seen as a mistake in the KJV. The big problem is not with the NA which lists textual variants (to some extent) but the translation not footnoting each variant. There is really no reason that translations shouldn’t footnote every single reasonably disputed verse.
I guess I’m not sure what adequately know is. If I bought a modern REB and look at Romans 15:19 it doesn’t say we are going with Dodd’s opinion which is a minority among scholars…. It doesn’t say anything. How do I know unless I’m buying books on variants?
Either we had the incorrect reading in the early part of the century of we had the incorrect reading now. They can’t both be true. You can argue that God sees that as a “close enough” kind of situation but we were wrong one time or the other.
Actually it strikes me not as biased but a tautology. His chain of reasoning is:
1) KJV is the definition of Scripture
2) sola scriptura -> doctrine derived from scripture -> doctrine derived from KJV
Therefore by definition any version is either doctrinal indifferent or doctrinally defective.
3) Modern versions are subtlety different in terms of vocabulary ->
These subtle differences will lead to minor shifts in doctrine.
It you accept point (1) that the definition of God’s word is the KJV it all seems to follow. Either you have to accept a more liberal version of God’s word that does require word for word preservation (which I think you have) or argue that something else is God’s word besides the KJV (for example the “originals”).
What Will is pointing out, and I think correctly, is that in sola scriptura environment translation philosophies are creeds.
That’s impossible by his definition, see above. Pure theology is defined in terms of the KJV. If your theology is not perfectly consistent with the KJV then your theology is defective. This is what makes this system so cool, it is incredibly closed from any sort of external critique. All you have to do is accept one miracle and everything follows.
Absolutely agreed. If we are going to start talking reality and not Will’s system, the further back you go the more ambiguous bibles will get on doctrinal matters. We’ve been slowly walking backward from the late 2nd century to the early 2nd century. There are a bunch of reconstructed texts and bible quotes we are starting to pick up that are much earlier than the manuscripts.
But again that doesn’t work as a counter argument because the system is so closed.
Which is my problem with Cloud’s position. You still end up with the problem that the KJV is a questionable translation to the Masoretic & TR.
There are a bunch of different positions being expressed some liberal some conservative.
1) That there were originals but they were corrupted early. What we have in the original languages that is old is bad.
1a) Heretical corruption
1b) Orthodox corruption
2) That “the originals” for parts of books and for books are different. The books as they exist today were mainly made of unifying earlier books (liberal position).
OK lets use your song analogy and I’ll pick Mack the Knife, Die Moritat von Mackie Messe
1) Did Macheath commit arson as per the libretto or no such crime as per all popular versions?
2) Should the song be sung upbeat (as per Bobbie Darrin’s super famous version, sensual as per Louis Armstrong, Operatic as per Fitzgerald or Industrial as per the Young Gods?
3) does he carry a flick knife or a jack knife?
etc….
And we have all the version of Mack the Knife and it still isn’t clear how to answer “doctrinal questions” about that song. Now take the Gettsburg Address with the different versions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_address#Five_manuscripts
Ho! Hum! All very interesting. It seems that much of this debate could only come from America (sorry, U.S.A.)
1) Proper name: Authorised Version (because it was “appointed to be read in churches”), but that doesn’t go down too well outside of Her Majesty’s dominions. (I believe it is also perpetual Crown copyright, currently vested in CUP as licensees.)
2) In sharing the Word of God with people on the street, I would far rather use a language that my hearers can understand without difficulty. (The AV doesn’t qualify here.) That is probably why the apostles used the Scriptures in more than one language. (Possibly including LXX.) That is also the point of the various languages on Pentecost Day (Acts 2).
3) The AV does have some important uses for serious study for those not adept in the original languages. For example, it retains second person singular and plural differentiation which are sometimes/often significant.
The real issue is intelligibility: in this age of increasing unfamiliarity with and distance from sustained text, can my hearers understand my words? While it is the work of the Holy Spirit to convict and convince my hearers (and readers), it is my work (and it is hard work) to get my language right. It helps no-one if I speak in a foreign language (whether ‘foreign’ by place or time).
We are worse than useless if we can’t be understood. They will only think us mad.
David,
Thanks for commenting.
I do believe that you are correct.
Sadly, this debate has been exported over seas. It is no longer exclusive to the States.
Thanks, David. Good points.
[...] Sinaiticus, textual debate, TR, Vaticanus JasonS 2:48 pm A few weeks ago we looked at the LXX. Amazingly enough, there are some KJVO’ers who deny its existence. They know that to [...]
I have recently started researching issues related to the LXX. I have some questions. Is the LXX authoritative for use as the christian’s OT? Is it superior to the MT? Is there any solid evidence that the MT has been deliberately tampered with? I know the basic history behind the LXX, and I know that the apostles quoted it more often than the MT. I also know that the early church used it for almost 500 years. I would appreciate your answers, and the reasons for those answers.
Thanks,
Michael
How would you decide that? What would be your criteria? Picking criteria is how you pick LXX over MT or visa versa. The western catholic church decided it one way the eastern the other.
What does “superior” mean?
Yes, but mostly prior to the authoring of the LXX. Moreover the LXX shows more evidence of tampering.
Perhaps my questions were not clear. I am thinking through these issues, so my questions may be rough around the edges. Some see the Hebrew behind the LXX as inspired. They believe that the MT as we know it has been tampered with. They would choose the LXX as a base text, and the MT as a reference. They would further argue that the LXX is quoted by the apostles far more exstensively than the MT, and that the LXX was the OT text of the early church. A number of these proponents (not all) are Orthodox, and they would further add the authrity of the decisions of the Orthodox Church as weight for the LXX. It seems that the DSS verify LXX readings.
There are those that think the MT should be the base text with the LXX as a reference. They would argue that Hebrew is the original language, and we should use it as a base. They too would correctly argue that the DSS verify MT readings. They would further argue that Hebrew texts without vowel points have been found that verify the MT.
There are some significant differences between the LXX and the MT when it comes to some very important Christiological passages.
All that being said, I have a technical and a personal question:
1. Which text should be the base text for the OT?
2. If a christian chose to read the MT or the LXX, would he, in the end, have the same general witness?
Micheal –
Agree with everything you said except DSS verify LXX readings. At most places where the LXX and the MT disagree the DSS sides with the MT, there are only a few examples the other way. Also there are some places where the MT and the LXX agree and the DSS disagrees with both.
As for question (2) yeah he would have same general witness but there would be exceptions.
Michael,
I think most evangelical Protestants have historically, from the time of the Reformation Bibles on, taken the MT as the primary text.
I know at Ps. 22:16 the MT has corrupted the original “pierced my hands and feet” to “like a lion my hands and feet”. Most believe this is a corruption, and a few Hebrew mss exist that have pierced.
I’m sure just on a purely scientific basis, the Hebrew text is likely to give you more of the original Hebrew, then what you’d get from the Greek translation. The translation already masks the Hebrew to some extent, whether or not it’s been corrupted.
Most scholars see the LXX as being of a mixed nature in the quality of the translation. Some portions of it show an excellent quality, others seem much more slip shod and inferior. There are missing sections and added sections, so with those it is a matter of trying to see how likely the readings are to have originated. It is possible the MT has some corruptions and misplaced verses, we have to evaluate each passage independently, I would think.
The Samaritan Pentateuch has some value as well, but it displays obvious corruptions as well.
Good questions, I’m not as familiar with OT text criticism as with NT. And as far as the KJV goes, the NKJV is more faithful to the MT then the KJV is. James Price has a study that I have a copy of, which examines the KJV’s textual base, and it is not always the MT, sometimes it is the LXX or Vulgate.
Thanks and God Bless,
Bob Hayton
Thanks for the responses to my post. It is always good to bounce these things off of other believers.
God Bless,
Michael
A few brief notes:
Jerome translated (Vulgate) OT direct from Hebrew, but with reference to the Greek text (i.e. LXX), and copped flak for doing so. He also referred to various earlier Latin translations. (Much like King James’ men: ” For when Your Highness had once out of deep judgment apprehended how convenient it was, that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labors, both in our own, and other foreign Languages of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue.”)
William Whiston, translator of Josephus’ works, believed that Josephus referred to a Hebrew text different from the MT. Josephus was/had been a priest in the Temple. Whiston believed that Josephus may have had access to the ‘official’ Temple scrolls in Rome after the destruction of the Temple. (Sorry I can’t give the reference to the relevant passages in Whiston – I don’t have access to my books at the moment, as I am lying in bed recovering from surgery.)
Many of the arguments used to propose that the AV should be the only version in use sound very much like the arguments used for the Vulgate against vernacular translations at the time of the Reformation. If the arguments are valid for the AV, then they are also valid for the Vulgate, which cuts the ground from under the AV anyway. But the arguments are not really valid.
As for the LXX: my elderly Greek neighbour (in Australia), a godly woman, says to me as she reads her well-thumbed bible while sitting on her front verandah: “Same Jesus.”
David,
I will pray that you heal quickly. Thanks for the reply, and I will try to find the author you mentioned. The comment about your neighbor is helpful. I have read most of Genesis in the LXX, and the general witness is the same as the MT, with some differences, but not major ones. I suspect that if I read the MT or the LXX in their entirety, I would be left with the same general witness. That would make me inclined to say as your neighbor, “same Jesus”.
God Bless,
Michael
Having read the comments from both sides, I notice a glaring omission in this debate: HOW the LXX was used by the Lord and the NT writers. There is a deliberate pattern of interpretative quoting which permeats the NT.
Example of interpretative quoting. Say the ‘original verse’ was (Patrick Henry’s) ‘Give me liberty, or give me death!’ — so in the (pretend) NT version we’d read, ‘Give me liberty from the Pharisees, or give me death!’ — we’d know both the original quotation and hence the humor of the requote. Another example from the same (pretend) original: ‘give me Word, or give me death!’ There, ‘liberty’ is paralleled with ‘Word’, because you know the original quotation.
I’m making videos showing how interpretative quoting works in the NT, because people mistake the deliberate changes in the NT quotations, for mistakes. They’re not mistakes. They are deliberate APPLICATIONS, viz, the Lord upgrades the First Commandment in Matt22:37 by strategic changes in the LXX of Deut 6:5. My latest two ‘brainouty’ videos in Youtube go over that deft upgrade. It’s a key rhetorical style in the NT which gets too little attention. In my Mark videos I’ll show how Mark’s style interpretatively quotes from Matthew and Luke to make biting parallels to Christian apostacy in his day. So there’s no ‘Q’, but Quotation, the standard way to integrate new Divine Writ into the old.
NT is very loyal to the LXX we have. No one can straddle three centuries’ difference in the Greek, especially since the LXX is quoted so much. So to claim that the NT verses are copied backwards into the LXX or vice versa, is a provable sham. Koine was new at the time of the LXX. It was well established by the Lord’s Day and the NT writers. So all those claiming the LXX bogus, need to see a doctor.
I’m not claiming all the LXX is valid. But certainly the quotes of it, are.
As for the claim someone back-copied from Romans 3 to Psalm 14, guess again. Those same statements are elsewhere in the OT, so if anything you could say that someone miscopied from elsewhere in the OT, not from Romans. Paul’s quote concatenates from many OT verses, a very common rhetorical style in the Lord’s discourse and the NT writers. So Romans 3 is a mix from Isaiah 64, Psalm 53, etc. So it’s much more likely Psalm 14 is miscopied or annotated. To say it’s a deliberate addition to validate Romans 3 is completely unecessary, as the concepts in Romans 3 are all over the OT.
Be very careful about bashing the LXX. For when you do that, you bash the New Testament, too.