Let the Minutiae Speak
I submitted a paper to Sharper Iron’s writing contest a few months back. They posted it today as one of the three winning entries. I’ll provide a brief excerpt here and encourage you to go over to SI to read the whole thing.
Let the minutiae speak: The place of genealogies, numbers, and parallel passages in the King James only debate
“Things that are different are not the same.” So says the title of Mickey Carter’s book advocating the exclusive use of the King James Bible. This sentiment is a fair summary of the mindset of most King James only (KJO) advocates. The differences between Bible versions demand a judgment. Which Bible is right?
Troubled by differing Bible versions, many sincere Christians seek for answers. One side affirms that no doctrine is affected by the relatively minor differences between Bible versions. The message is the same, but finer points and particular details may be slightly different. A typical KJO position jumps in and says this can’t be right. Verbal inspiration is useless without the preservation of those very words of God. In fact, we need to know each and every word, in order to live (Matt. 4:4). All differences, even word order and spelling differences, matter (Matt. 5:18). Differing versions cannot both claim to be translations of the perfect, inspired Word of God.
On the face of it, the KJO argument makes sense. When we’re speaking about the Bible, shouldn’t every little difference matter? Some respond with manuscript evidence that calls into question the choice of the King James Bible as a perfect standard. Others have shown that the various proof texts for word perfect preservation don’t actually promise a single, identifiable, word-perfect copy of the Bible. And prior to 1611, where was such a copy to be found, anyway?
In this paper, I want to take us down a road less traveled. Rather than looking for a proof text which directly deals with this controversy, I aim to scour the King James Bible itself for examples of the very differences which are said to matter so much. The minor points of Scripture itself, the minutia, should be allowed to speak to this issue. Genealogies, lists, numbers, and parallel passages all have an important bearing on how we should think about “things that are different.” [read the rest of the entry at Sharper Iron]
Tags: Bible, Bob Hayton, discrepancies, harmony, KJV-onlyism, KJVO, parallel passages, quotations, recommended
KJV-onlyism, KJVO, LXX, Recommended Resource, Textual Criticism, Weighing the Evidence
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bob Hayton, re:Fundamentals and KJV Only Debate Blog, Reforming Fundmtlst. Reforming Fundmtlst said: At KJVO Debate Blog: Let the Minutiae Speak http://bit.ly/90byk9 by @kjvodebate [...]
Hi Folks,
redgreen5
“it was around that same time that Jews started abandoning the LXX (Ernst Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, trans. Errol F. Rhodes, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995.)”
This is hard to understand, since the translations of Aquila, Theodotian, and Symmachus were all post-apostolic times. Thus I would like to see the precise evidence used by Würthwein.
Josephus makes it clear that there was not the OT histories circulating in the late 1st-century (by his intention to do a translation so the Romans would have the histories.. instead he wrote Antiquities.
Shalom,
Steven
Hi Folks,
redgreen5
“Dr DiVietro mentions that he finds no evidence of an LXX prior to Origen”
The three versions mentioned above were prior to Origen, plus his “LXX” column. One problem is terminology, the phrase “LXX” has multiple meanings, here DiVietro may be contending that the Septuagint column in Origen was his own translation, and all that existed before that were the 2nd-century editions mentioned above, excepting the Pentateuch (which has solid DSS representation).
You can read about the three versions mentioned above at:
The text of the Old Testament: an introduction to the Biblia Hebraica (1995)
Ernst Würthwein
http://books.google.com/books?id=FSNKSBObCYwC&pg=PA57
Here is Würthwein on “abandoned”.
“And even this standard text, the Septuagint, was
completely abandoned in the second century for new versions (cf. pp. 54ff.) which adhered closely to the officially established Hebrew text. (p. 64)”
Thus he is only talking about switching editions of the Greek OT. He is only talking of the Pentateuch “(of the Torah alone) p. 64″ more confirming than contradicting Kirk Vietro.
Shalom,
Steven
Bob
Are you arguing that we use a translation of the Bible such as the LXX to correct the original language apographs? That sounds suspiciously like a CT Ruckmanite. I notice you fall into the same trap as so many in assuming a fact without proving it. You said, “he demonstrates conclusively that the Greek OT translation is predominantly followed by the NT authors” – sorry, but he does no such thing. Dr DiVietro answered that myth in his interview.
You list of supposed “errors” are nothing new. There are legitimate explanations out there despite your attempt to pass them off as bordering on the incredulous.
Cainan
The various genealogies throughout Scripture do sometimes contain gaps, which those who are presuppositionally committed to as inerrancy, inspiration, and preservation must recognise as intentional and legitimate. There are biblical precedents for additional information about the specific names of individuals revealed by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament which are not found in the Old Testament narrative such as Jannes and Jambres in 2 Timothy 3:8. The same arguments you marshal against the inclusion of Cainan in Luke 3:36 could be used to claim 2 Timothy 3:8 is a scribal interpolation.
I’m not saying there are not explanations. I look for explanations on many of these as using an ESV (as I do) doesn’t get around the difficulty. I’m just saying that Scripture doesn’t present itself all neat and tidy and one-version like. How Scripture presents itself to us, should shape how we think about preservation.
Regarding “Cainan”, my own position is that he existed and the LXX and Luke are both right. The Hebrew is right too, and it is a case for us to learn that genealogies have gaps. I would take the Hebrew as inspired OT rather than the LXX giving of tradition in that place. Luke uses the tradition and since it is accurate, does so under inspiration.
PS Ferguson:
You said, “he demonstrates conclusively that the Greek OT translation is predominantly followed by the NT authors” – sorry, but he does no such thing. Dr DiVietro answered that myth in his interview.
Well, no.
In his interview, Dr DiVietro mentions a paper he wrote for the Dean Burgon Society where his conclusion was that in John, Acts and Hebrews no OT quotes came from the LXX. He believes they were instead sourced from Hebrew texts.
However, the survey that appears here: http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm is an exhaustive review of all OT quotations, even those outside of John, Acts and Hebrews.
Mr Ferguson, one gets the sense that you did not look at the tables provided in the link? They’re fairly exhaustive and easily verified.
A handful of problems with assuming that Dr DiVietro “answered this myth” are as follows:
1. The books that Dr DiVietro selected – quotations from the OT appear in John 14 times; in Acts, 40 times; and in Hebrews, 37 times for a total of 91 quotes. Yet the OT is quoted 320 times in the NT. Dr DiVietro’s conclusion that a review of only three books — and surveying only 28.5% of OT quotations in the NT — somehow proves that the NT writers were preferentially (or exclusively) using a Hebrew text for sourcing their OT quotes is thus premature.
2. Dr DiVietro mentions that he finds no evidence of an LXX prior to Origen in the 2nd century, with the possible exception of the Pentateuch. This is strange, not merely because it disagrees with many other sources, but also because it was around that same time that Jews started abandoning the LXX (Ernst Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, trans. Errol F. Rhodes, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995.)
But for the sake of argument, assuming that Dr DiVietro is correct here, what does that mean? How would the presence of Greek Pentateuch affect the results of this experiment?
One of the items surfaced by Jone’s survey work was that quotes from the Torah (first five books of Moses) agreed 100% with the LXX whenever quoted in the NT. This likely evidences the greater care and respect used when translating the Torah into Greek for the LXX. It also hints at the greater availability of LXX copies of the Torah, as opposed to the remaining books of the OT canon.
This matters because of the three books he chose, the book of Acts is one where there is 100% agreement with the LXX. But nearly half the quotations in Acts come from the Torah (19 out of 40). Thus, using Acts as a test case for this hypothesis was a poor choice. A more apropos set would have been a survey of all four gospels, and NT quotes of the minor prophets (where fidelity to the LXX falls off precipitously). Of course, the best case would have been to review all OT quotes in the NT.
3. Finally, I wonder if Dr DiVietro realizes that his position (i.e. no evidence of an LXX prior to the 2nd century) puts him at odds with the translators of the original 1611 KJV? In their Preface to the Reader, they mention the NT authors’ use of the LXX:
“The translation of the Seventy [Septuagint] dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither does it come near it, for perspicuity, gratuity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess), which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the Word of God.”
I would actually be interested to know if Dr. DiVietro’s study of the LXX is available online somewhere to look at. The link I had provided to this other study is very convincing it’d be interesting to see DiVietro’s approach and how he got his results.
It is available from the Dean Burgon Society in print; but he does not have it online.
Thanks Erik for hunting that down.
I suspect that there are “degrees” in believing. For example, a King James Bible onlyist is most likely to believe the absolute truth of various passages, and that all differences in numbers or names between listings in book are true, and there is some truthful reason for the variations. In other words, we observe complementary, not contradictory material.
I fear that the further one moves from the King James Bible position, and the further one embraces the uncertainty and transiency of modernism, the more likely a person will admit to errors in the Scripture. I do not mean errors in inspiration (that is actually the ultimate doctrine of modernism, and can lead to atheism), but there are many know who speak of unresolved copyist errors and other such factors leading to us only to have perhaps 99.9% certainty as to what the Scripture actually should be, the way it should read, etc.
Dean Burgon once wrote, “Why then are difficulties of this, or of any kind, permitted in the Gospel at all? it may be asked — I answer, — that they may prove instruments of probation to you and to me. The sensualist has his trials; and the ambitious man, his. The difficulties in Holy Scripture, — which are numerous, and diverse, and considerable, — are admirable tests of the moral, the spiritual, the intellectual temper of Man.”
In other words, we are commanded to study, not merely have a sort of blind acceptance of error, i.e. that men err and because men have been involved in transmission, God has failed to particularly preserve His Word. What is accused of being “blind faith” in the truth actually is simple faith, and is backed up by reason, and should be executed by study, prayer and hearing godly teaching.
It also seems to me that the new Christian’s study is different to a developing Christian’s, and that what once might be an area of learning, afterward is but milk compared to more meaty aspects. In all this, I would caution most strongly against casting stumblingblocks in the paths of young Christians, such as I have seen the way some have dealt with the “Cainan” issue (without a Biblical explanation, an attack on the certainty of the Scripture that we have today is actually a seed which can grow into atheism).
Having said all that, the principle of “things being different” within the Scripture are all true and complementary information. They are proper variations within inspiration. Things being different between versions and translations are not under the banner of inspiration, and have occurred because of the existence of the spirit of antichrist in the earth. Thus, God has been able to sufficiently use 99.9% correct versions and translations, but has also worked (it is consistent with his nature and Bible prophecy) to resolve textual and sense differences in time.
“He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” (Matt. 12:30).
P.S. The word differences of Jesus in Luke 4 to Isaiah 61 are the Holy Ghost’s work. This does not justify modern versions and paraphrases as though they are from the Spirit.
I think that you are using the term modernism incorrectly. Relativism and uncertainty are characteristic of postmodernity. Modernity was nothing if not certain – usually certain in the power of reason to provide the highest answers. I could be wrong.
“Modernism” is a code word which covers things other than the technical Roman Catholic usage, such as might also be found in Reformed, Evangelical and Pentecostal circles meaning something like liberal theology.
The KJBO use of “modernism” has the following tenants (this is not a full treatment, just some thoughts):
1. All men are prone to error, all works of men are prone to error.
Therefore, error is inevitable.
2. In time man’s knowledge of science is improving (e.g. textual criticism), his capabilities are excelling, he is attaining to higher things.
Therefore, something new or contemporary is better than something outdated. New insight into the past trumps superstitious tradition.
The next is not strictly modernist, but ties to it,
3. God has hardly used men or earthly processes after the death of the Apostle John.
Of course, the conclusion of such a view would be that:
1. There is no perfect version or translation today.
2. The latest textual studies are coming closer to a better state of being.
3. God has not designed or actively willed to provide Christians with one final Bible for the whole world.
BP,
I think your definition of modernism is something my father would consent to. I also would say that the defining tenets are legitimate and characterize what I call “the inevitably modern” and “the primitive ancient” fallacies
By these terms, I mean that from about the time of the Enlightenment until about World War I, there was this commonly held position that whatever ‘modern’ people believed was the inevitable zenith of all of creation.
Thus, their understanding of the natural world was superior to all that come before. Their understanding of the Scriptures (and the evolution thereof) was superior.
They held that ancients (and medieval people doubly so) were inferior to their own modern abilities and reason, that the ancients were backward and inferior and thus to be disregarded as substandard. In essence, they believed that their knowledge made them the final word on everything.
This idea has been largely deconstructed in society, and I have elsewhere stated that I believe the Church to be (ironically) one of the last bastions of modernity. What was abhorrent to people of faith at the beginning of the ‘Modern Age’ is now their security.
This is also why I often refer to the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament as ‘fadish’ and ‘a product of its day.’ The attitude of modern superiority was so rife in Victorian and Edwardian England (but not exclusively there) that they were held captive by their own modernity. Even their unitarianism was a fadish academic fascination.
Prayerfully, the Church is emerging from the mess of modernity (this kind of superiority did ultimately breed two world wars, among other violence and destruction) and is now trying to rebuild the heritage and lineage of those who have come before us.
I think this postmodern attempt at reconnection with the past (although most TR-O, KJV-O proponents would balk at being called postmodern because they and most of the people who use it misunderstand the term), is one of the most admiral qualities of the TRO and KJVO camps. While I have some disagreements about the ways they reconnect with their past, I agree that such things must be done.
The modernists thought they knew everything, but we know better now!
Andrew,
A humorous rephrasing of the way many ‘postmodern’ thinkers tend to lean. I prefer to think along the lines of recognizing that we don’t know better and relearning the way our pre-modern antecedents saw things. While modernity did give us tools to learn about the past, I think it is safe to say that they learned about the past to criticize it. Hopefully, we will learn about the past so we can reconnect with it.
Hi Folks,
All of these surveys have one major problem. By their methodology they would have Romans 3 extensively quoting Psalm 14 .. as the sections match, rather than multiple Psalms, Proverbs and Isaiah. The problem is that the wild and ultra-corrupt Greek OT may often have that type of “smoothing” to the NT, with a reading unsupported by other early evidences. (DSS, Targumim, Vulgate, Peshitta) This has the effect of deep-sixing the surveys, making them of little analytical significance.
Shalom,
Steven
Avery:
One problem is terminology, the phrase “LXX” has multiple meanings, here DiVietro may be contending that the Septuagint column in Origen was his own translation, and all that existed before that were the 2nd-century editions mentioned above, excepting the Pentateuch (which has solid DSS representation).
I don’t think Dr DiVietro has been mis-read, nor is there any evidence that Dr DiVietro intended his statement to refer to a private translation by Origen in the Hexapla. Let’s review the entire statement by Dr DiVietro:
Further I found there is no direct evidence of a Septuagint (except for the possible translation of the Pentateuch) in the pre-christian era. The Septuagint as we know it appears first in the writings of Origen near the end of the 2nd century AD. The modern text ASSUMES the Septuagint origin of the OT quotes and whenever it finds a variant that agrees with the Septuagint elevates it above the historic reading.
I think this statement makes clear that Dr DiVietro meant the LXX as it is commonly understood: the Greek translation of the OT, which included more than just the Pentateuch. A quick look at Wikipedia’s entry for LXX shows that at a minimum, the Torah and the minor prophets date from the 1st century BCE:
“The oldest manuscripts of the LXX include 2nd century BC fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BC fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943). ”
And of course, the “proof text” that caused friction between early Christians and Jews (Isaiah, parthenos) existed, thus adding Isaiah to our list.
Finally, if it is Dr DiVietro’s contention that the LXX was not fully developed during the time of the NT writers, then what OT were they quoting from? He believes that the OT Hebrew texts were available and used. If so, then why is it that the OT quotations found in the NT disagree so badly with the Masoretic Text?Review Table 2 and Table 7 from http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm
So if there was no LXX at that time, and these OT citations disagree with the MT, then what? Is it Dr DiVietro’s contention that these hypothetical 1st century Hebrew source texts represent the restored original Hebrew, and the current base of the OT is flawed and ought to be updated?
Avery, re: Würthwein
Thus he is only talking about switching editions of the Greek OT. He is only talking of the Pentateuch “(of the Torah alone) p. 64″ more confirming than contradicting Kirk Vietro.
No, he is talking about producing a *new* Greek version for Jewish audiences, one that (by its choices of Greek translations, i.e. parthenos) will not serve as a buttress for Christian arguments against Judaism. But this new version would not be the LXX; it would be another entirely different product. Page 54:
“This appropriation of the Greek Old Testament by the Christian Church led the Jews to disown and create for themselves new forms of the text in Greek, whether by revision or by independent translation.”
But prior to this decision to produce a new Greek LXX, both Jew and Greek had been using the same, original LXX (allowing, of course, for local scribal variations). And this LXX was more extensive than just the Pentateuch. Even the example Würthwein uses (parthenos) is drawn from Isaiah, not the five books of Moses.
more confirming than contradicting Kirk Vietro.
Sadly, I don’t see how.
My dad’s position is that there were certainly scattered Greek translations of portions and possibly even the entire Bible prior to Origen but that the translation we know now as LXX did not come on the scene until the School of Alexandria.
It is his own deductive theory based on his reading of the various forms of LXX and comparison to the GNT. To my knowledge, it is not based on anyone else’s theory.
I should remind you guys that anytime you read something my father wrote in this interview, it was off the cuff and not based on any kind of time for research. One thing he did fail to mention is that he does his own primary research – something I could only hope to do one day. His knowledge of Greek texts is based on actually manuscripts, not printed texts. His association with J. Roy Stewart allowed him access to Stewart’s own library of printed and manuscript Bibles as well as connections to many others who had access to manuscripts. When I was in college, one of my many summer projects for him was taking the train into Boston and running off copies of microfiche facsimiles of Greek manuscripts in the basement of the Harvard library, so I can personally attest to his accumulation of these facsimiles (with less than pleasant hours spent in front of microfiche machines and running to the store to get bags of quarters for the antiquated copying machines.
In a discussion this week, I asked him to catalogue the manuscripts and editions he has. He has in his possession facsimiles of א, A, β, D^ea, W, and all of the papyri. As far as printed New Testaments, he has the Complutensian Polyglot, all the editions of Erasmus, Stephanus and Elzevir as well as the original printing of Scrivener, von Tischendorf with apparatus, Westcott-Hort, and all of the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society Greek New Testaments.
Hi Folks,
“Dr DiVietro meant the LXX as it is commonly understood: the Greek translation of the OT, which included more than just the Pentateuch”
There is no “common understanding of the term”. And the most literal scholarly understanding is opposite what you claim. When referring to the translation referenced in the Letter of Aristeas (the most literal understanding) scholars generally agree that is a reference to a translation of the Pentateuch, sans other books.
redgreen5
“both Jew and Greek had been using the same, original LXX (allowing, of course, for local scribal variations”
However, this is not what Wurthwein says:
“The earliest translations of the Scriptures in written form (the Old Septuagint) were pioneer undertakings accomplished without adequate tools (lexicons, etc.). Even before the Christian era, perhaps from the very first, comparing these translations with the Hebrew text revealed them to be inadequate and inspired (sic) efforts to bring the Greek text more into conformity with the Hebrew original. (p. 54) … even prior to Jewish-Christian discussions there had been a trend toward conforming the Greek to the Hebrew text. (p.55)
So not only is Wurthwein talking about “translations” plural but also various editions and changes unto “conformity”. So there is no recognizable “same, original” LXX .. that is simply a myth.
And what is improperly called the “LXX” today in printed editions if from the manuscripts more than 500 years later, incorporating various corruptions and competing tamperings, after one of the worst transmissional histories possible (including competing doctrinal tamperings). ie. The “LXX” editions today are based on good old super-corrupt Vaticanus, with some assistance from Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus or it is based on the widely differing Greek Orthodox text.
And I’ll let you go back and forth with Kirk DiVietro. I find that since the definition of “LXX” is so squirrelly, as shown above, that discussions get bogged down in various nuances of what the word is supposed to mean. Everybody likes to refer to “the LXX” yet if there was such a text it was probably Pentateuch only and not recognizable in any text in the world today, making its usage problematic.
Notice this from Wurthwein:
“In the course of time Christian insertions crept into the text, as in Ps. 95, Ps. 13. and elsewhere.”
This is one aspect (in addition to dubious methodology) that makes all these verse studies problematic, since the text called the LXX today is corrupt with “Christian” alexandrian smoothings (tamperings) like Psalm 14. So you can be studying a Greek manuscript from the 4th or 5th century that was highly modified to relate to the NT better, and the scholars study will falsely place that 4th century text as pre-NT for the purposes of the study. An anachronistic blunder.
In fact, corruptions are very early, as indicated by the Justin Martyr textual blunderama references (this is not a reference to Isaiah 7:14).
Justin Martyr and his references in Psalms and Jeremiah and elsewhere and the discussion of Isaiah are interesting, showing Christian usage of some Greek OT in the 2nd century and a lot of blunders and errors already being made in Christian apologetics on this score, perhaps because of early textual tampering.
Such as “reigned from the tree” (or wood) extant today in no manuscript in any language, even Greek. Opinions on this vary widely and solid analysis is hard to find (it would be good to find and read Skarsaune) however it looks to be proof that very significant tampering with the Greek OT manuscripts was done as early as the 1st and 2nd centuries.
These two editions includes some notes on the verses, the discussion focuses on chapters 71-73.
Dialogue with Trypho (2003)
Michael Slusser
http://books.google.com/books?id=WBXUNkYU_bwC&pg=PA111
Thomas B. Falls
http://books.google.com/books?id=molt0n94JLoC&pg=PA262
leading to the embarrassment of the fabrication of the phrase in Psalm 95 and other huge problems.
Also, the availability of one Greek manuscript from around the time of the NT of the minor prophets extant in the world today is worth lots of study, yet it does not indicate wide circulation.
Incidentally, Wurthwein does not mention the Josephus reference that indicates the lack of historical books circulating in the 1st century.
===================================
Redgreen5 on R. Grant Jones
“quotes from the Torah (first five books of Moses) agreed 100% with the LXX whenever quoted in the NT.”
You are referencing a study that has lots of methodological problems, (at least R. Grant Jones acknowledges no expertise in Greek or Hebrew) but I would like you to actually quote the study, so we can can compare it with your assertion above, which looks very, very strange. Rarely does any NT reference agree 100% with either the extant GOT or the Masoretic Text, making the statement simply false on face.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Steve,
You need to think here. You keep disagreeing with Dr. DiVietro and it seems you do so just to be disagreeable. What he is saying is very similar to what you’re saying. He’s saying the LXX everyone refers to today (the printed LXX), likely hails from Origen’s day as an Alexandrian creation. He still allows earlier Greek translation work, but says that was different from the printed LXX we know now. How is that not the same as what you are saying (minus all the detailed reasons for such a position, which as Eric pointed out, Dr. DiVietro didn’t have space to bring forth)?
Hi Folks,
Bob, please read more carefully. I was actually disagreeing with three quotes from Redgreen5, who was criticizing Kirk DiVietero, saying his presentation had “a handful of problems”.
So I have no idea why you place me as the Kirk critic. And I am rather neutral about Kirk DiVietro’s position on the LXX, even mildly supportive, with reservations about the obscurity. Which is why I emphasized that a lot of the difficulty is that “LXX” is used different ways.
Since the term is used in multiple ways, you have to be slow to criticize a general use (even the Ruckman and Gipp use of “myth”) yet all the statements of redgreeen5 above were faulty.
====================
redgreen5 did make a reasonable points too : that a person reading Kirk’s interview would not understand that he is allowing for evidence like the minor prophet’s scroll, or the Justin Martyr evidence in a quote like this:
“no evidence of an LXX prior to Origen”
=============================
Perhaps we should continue the discussion on TC-Alternate ?
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Hi Folks,
Bob
“Kirk’s .. saying the LXX everyone refers to today (the printed LXX), likely hails from Origen’s day as an Alexandrian creation.”
Perhaps, but unclear. There are actually two or more printed “LXX”s, the scholars like to use Vaticanus as the base, the Greek Orthodox have their own text.
However there is a big problem here, since LXX is also used for the hypothetical text of 200 AD. Some scholars would like to keep the term to that usage and call the versions extant today the “Greek Old Testament”. This confusion was fed in the thread, where no distinction was made.
“He still allows earlier Greek translation work”
See above. redgreen5 did not see that, I accept that, but I am trying to unravel the confusion.
“but says that was different from the printed LXX we know now. How is that not the same as what you are saying”
There is overlap. As I am emphasizing the competing and totally contradictory meanings of LXX (not just on this thread, but in many places) lead to conversational roadblocks.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Sorry for misunderstanding your reference Steven. I get it now.
For the record, I still think the LXX and other Greek OT translations were close enough in form that we can still observe that the NT more often goes with the Greek than the Greek being resmoothed after the NT. That’s the scholarly consensus anyway and if the LXX really was a massive edit job to conform to the NT than why doesn’t it conform more exactly?
Hi Folks,
redgreen5
equate “kjvo-friendly” with most literal scholarship.
Hmmm.. do you always get snide when scholarly issues are raised ?
“LXX” is used with very different meanings.
1) the translation of the 70 (or 72) in 200 B.C. of the Pentateuch in the letter of Aristeas, fable or truth or bit of both
2) what is considered by a scholar to be the earliest Greek Old Testament reading, whenever originated
3) ancient Jewish-based Greek Old Testaments in the early centuries, possibly including, or not, the translations of Aquila, Theodotus or Symmacheus, that may or may not have been used by Josephus, Philo, the Apostles
4) Greek editions like Brentons or from the Greek Orthodox, which can vary widely
5) Any Greek Old Testament of any books or time.
Now watch the literal “purist” scholarship. Must be some KJB folks.
Ken Schenck – Dean of Wesley Seminary at Indiana Wesleyan University
http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/2007/09/classroom-snippets-septuagint.html
Purists only use the word Septuagint to refer to the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek as related in the Letter of Aristeas .. Purists refer to the rest of the Greek Old Testament as the Old Greek translation.
Schenck is reasonable, although his “rest of” is ambiguous. And the best usage of “LXX”, if it is to have any real meaning, is the #1 above.
Joel Kalvesmaki is a sensible writer.
The History of the Septuagint, and its Terminology
http://www.kalvesmaki.com/lxx/
A strict, purist use of Septuagint would allow the term to be used only of the earliest, (probably) unrecoverable translation of the Pentateuch made by the Jewish scholars around 282 BCE.
However, scholarship is all over the map .. now watch.
As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture (2008)
Stanley E. Porter
http://books.google.com/books?id=FwxqQacv9b4C&pg=PA120
As an initial point on terminology, lxx has taken on a variety ot different meanings and is often used in ambiguous and unqualified ways in New ‘testament studies.
This is such a problem that there was a paper (must of been written by a KJB kook !) “The Use and Abuse of the Term ‘LXX’ and Related Terminology in Recent Scholarship,” by Leonard Greenspoon (1987)
Here is an example of trying to grapple with the problem.
The use of the Septuagint in New Testament research (2003)
Tim McLay
http://books.google.com/books?id=41rx-TDIF9gC&pg=PA5
… For example, one often finds references in the footnotes of English translations of the Bible to a reading of the “LXX” without any explanation. To what does this mysterious “LXX” refer? Sometimes “LXX” refers to the … Part of the problem of the use of “LXX” is related to terminology. … Strictly speaking then, LXX referred originally to the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek. …. A terminological difficulty is encountered when nonspecialists employ a reading from printed editions of the LXX (Rahlfs or Brooke-McLean) or a manuscript and refer to it as the reading of the Septuagint as though it represents the oldest recoverable form of the Greek text of that book. … For this reason, most specialists now reserve the term Old Greek (OG) to designate a text that in the judgment of the scholar represents the original translation of a book.
The use of the Old Testament in Hebrews
Susan E. Docherty
http://books.google.com/books?id=m_ibMxphF_MC&pg=PA123
An increasing number of commentators are therefore following Greenspoons in drawing a distinction between “Old Greek’, meaning the earliest stage of Greek translation that can be reconstructed for any biblical book, and ‘Septuagint’ as descriptive of the whole transmitted tradition of Greek versions.
Such a scholar would not ask if Jesus or the Apostles used the LXX, the question would be whether they used Old Greek manuscripts.
To make it more confusing, we have seen other scholars like Schenck quite properly desiring to go the other way, limiting LXX to an ancient definition, and using Greek Old Testament for the “whole transmitted tradition of Greek versions”. Personally I think Greenspoon handled the issue backwards.
After I wrote the above, I found that others found this method strange. Joel Kalvesmaki : “Some refer to this earliest stage as the “Old Greek,” but with some confusion, since this suggests that the term Septuagint should be applied only to texts with no connection to the legend of the seventy-two.”
Here are more KJB kooks.
“Strictly speaking, there is really no such thing as the Septuagint. This may seem like an odd statement in a book entitled Invitation to the Septuagint, but unless the reader appreciates the fluidity and ambiguity of the term, he or she will quickly become confused by the literature. . . “The reader is cautioned, therefore, that there is really no such thing as the Septuagint.” Invitation to the Septuagint, Karen Jobe and Moises Silva (2000)
Ben Byerly talks about how some of today’s scholar’s look at this:
The LXX doesn’t exist – Ben Byerly
http://benbyerly.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/the-lxx-doesnt-exist/
Manuscript evidence also shows that the the NT writers couldn’t possibly be quoting from the “LXX.” There are lots of lots of other interesting implications. Very fun discussion. Stay tuned for a forthcoming book.
Still no LXX
http://benbyerly.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/still-no-lxx/
Thus ANY usage of the word LXX or Septuagint without making clear the actual meaning is likely to shed no light on a topic. is dubious.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Hi Folks,
2 points to clarify.
1) Above I am allowing the translation referenced from the letter of Aristeas to be a ‘fact’. Maybe, maybe not.
2) Redgreen5
“prior to this decision to produce a new Greek LXX, both Jew and Greek had been using the same, original LXX (allowing, of course, for local scribal variations).”
This is 100% refuted by the Justin Martyr-Trypho dialog and Justin’s stumblings in chapters 71-73, even at 150 AD there were major textual disagreements based on textual differences and tamperings.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Avery:
There is no “common understanding of the term”.
Yes there is, Avery.
http://www.septuagint.net/
http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/
http://www.septuagint.org/LXX/?ac=1
http://ecclesia.org/truth/septuagint-hyperlinked.html
Also see:
The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan. Oxford University Press, 1993. Pages 686-687.
And the most literal scholarly understanding is opposite what you claim.
No, that is your attempt to equate KJVO-friendly with “most literal scholarly”. They are not the same.
When referring to the translation referenced in the Letter of Aristeas
But no one was referring to that letter. My comment that you took objection to was a response to Dr DiVietro, who clearly said “The Septuagint as we know it appears first in the writings of Origen near the end of the 2nd century AD.” The “Septuagint as we know it” is considerably more than the Pentateuch and obviously not a reference to the Letter of Aristeas.
However, this is not what Wurthwein says
In this passage you cite, Würthwein is only discussing the tools and resources available. He is not contesting:
(1) the composition of the Septuagint, nor is he implying that
(2) there was one LXX for Greek Christians while another different LXX for Greek-speaking Jews.
Those were my points.
And what is improperly called the “LXX” today… the worst transmissional histories possible (including competing doctrinal tamperings). ie. The “LXX” editions today are based on good old super-corrupt Vaticanus, with some assistance from Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus or it is based on the widely differing Greek Orthodox text.
The above paragraph contributes nothing to the discussion. You’ll have to find another audience for your private theories of textual corruption.
Sorry, Red. I don’t know why your comment ended up in the SPAM bin. I posted it and deleted the duplicate comments.
Thanks,
Bob
Hi Folks,
No need to be sorry, I enjoyed learning about the huge difficulties with using the phrase “LXX” and presenting it forth to others. Before the study I did not even know there were two conflicting methods of trying to straighten out the problem. I plan to be using the material elsewhere in the future, writing to folks concerned with accuracy.
As for your insistence that Kirk DiVietro gave a definition, you are straining at gnats and can duke it out with Kirk DiVietro. However it is clear that the statement:
redgreen5
“The Septuagint as we know it appears first in the writings of Origen near the end of the 2nd century AD.”
Is NOT a definition of LXX, contra your assertion. The statement is problematic and vague, because there is no one “Septuagint as we know it” (Brenton, Rahlfs, Greek Orthodox ?.. perhaps a reference to scholars looking at the ancient texts). Thus the attempt by Kirk DiVietro to add some background in response.
Your joke that there is a general scholarly consensus when the top scholars are writing specific articles and paragraphs about the scholarly problem today is appreciated.
redgreen5
“you are arguing that the majority of scholars do not understand “Septuagint” to mean the Hebrew canon”
Not at all, you should not falsely represent my words since I never talked about “majority of scholars” and I gave five meanings of “LXX” in use.
The issue here is simply pointing the problems and seeking accurate and precise language. Your approach is more on the level of posturing about a fabricated consensus.
However I did appreciate your earlier points about the Minor Prophets scroll and Justin Martyr.
As to the “Hebrew canon” (which I never discussed previously) What is your opinion of the Josephus reference which indicates that the “Hebrew canon” was not available in circulation in 1st century Rome ?
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Avery
[1]
It is unfortunate that you spent so much time looking up citations for an argument that nobody was making. You chose to jump off on a detour about the definition of LXX, but that was unnecessary. We already had a definition to work with. I was responding to exactly how Dr DiVietro himself had defined it.
“The Septuagint as we know it appears first in the writings of Origen near the end of the 2nd century AD.”
How do we know the whole Greek OT is meant by this comment? Simple: the point of Dr DiVietro’s comment was to differentiate the Pentateuch from the entire LXX. He indicated that he found evidence for former, but not for the latter.
[2]
Your new claim is that “the most literal scholarly understanding is opposite what you claim”, i.e., that the Septuagint is commonly understood to be the Greek OT. But at most you have demonstrated that the term has, on occasion, been confused in scholarly situations (more about that, below). That is not the same thing as demonstrating that the “most literal scholarly understanding” is opposite of what I claimed. Nor does it demonstrate that the general scholarly consensus differs from what I stated, or what my sources stated.
[3]
The argument you present is the same argument found in academic circles where the boundaries of the discussion are poorly defined. Does the term “western nations” include Japan, which is Asian, but has western democratic ideals and market-based economy? Does the term “Islamic culture” include Iran, which is Muslim but does not speak Arabic and has a vastly different history rooted in Persia, not in the Hijaz? The presence of active discussions about boundary areas does not refute a general agreement and understanding about the central concept itself.
Let’s be clear: you are arguing that the majority of scholars do not understand “Septuagint” to mean the Hebrew canon (all of it) translated into Greek for use in Greek speaking areas of the Roman Empire. That’s quite a claim. I do not envy your burden of proof.
Bob -
There are some serious flaws in your argumentation in this article. Please keep this comment-space open a while longer so as to allow me some time to address them later. (Later, as in, within a few days.)
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
I’m not planning on closing the comments, James. I’m interested in your feedback, whenever you have time.
Thanks
Bob,
There are several notable side-paths in “Let the Minutiae Speak” that I want to address, but first the main line of reasoning needs to be examined. Your theme, it seems, is that because there is vagueness, imprecision, and even, occasionally, what seem to be disagreements in the extant Biblical text between one book and another, we should not be concerned when we find, in modern translations, vagueness and imprecision, and what seem to be contradictions against the traditional text. Do you not see a chasm in that argument? I see at least two problems: (1) Some of the difficulties in the extant Biblical text emanate from textual corruption. It is not sound reasoning to propose that bad copying justifies bad translating. (2) The difficulties in the extant Biblical text are frequently not of the same class or scale as the difficulties in modern translations and paraphrases. Noticing that the extant text is sometimes question-raising does not justify raising entirely different questions. Or to put it another way, inheriting old difficulties does not justify the creation of new difficulties.
Let’s look at some of the problems in the extant text that you identified. First, in the genealogies in Genesis and I Chronicles, many names are spelled differently. This is not really much of a problem, though, because spelling – even spelling of proper names – was anything but standardized in those ancient times. Even much more recently, in the Middle Ages, the author Geoffrey of Monmouth has been shown to have signed his own name three times, spelling it differently each time. Gaps in the genealogies, likewise, are not a genuine problem, considering that the genealogies in Genesis are tightly structured, and considering that it would be natural for people (such as Ezra) to summarize their genealogy at times in the interest of brevity. And some difficulties – such as the discrepancy about Timnah you mentioned – may be resolved via conjectural emendation, relying on variants in the Septuagint and/or other sources. As for the differences between the genealogy listed in Matthew 1 and the genealogy in Luke 3, we are looking at the result of a bifurcation caused by a levirate-marriage, pretty much as Julius Africanus explained it.
Regarding the lists of David’s mighty men in II Samuel 23 and I Chron. 11, I submit that the individual identified as Josheb-Basshebeth the Tachmonite in II Sam. 23:8 is the same individual who is identified in I Chron. 11:11 as Jashobeam, a Hachmonite. (The KJV text rendered the unusual name in II Sam. 23:8 as “that sat in the seat,” but the KJV margin presented the proper name as an alternative rendering.) As for the difference between 300 and 800, this is just one of many differences between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles that are addressed in explanatory works such as John W. Haley’s 1876 “Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible” (which you can download from Google Books). In this particular case, there may be a textual corruption, or the same man who was once responsible for 300 enemy deaths may have later gained even greater fame by being responsible for 800 enemy deaths. As for the matter of some names being listed in one list but not in the other, it seems to me that this shows that the lists of David’s mighty men were updated from time to time, as soldiers died and were replaced.
Regarding the lists in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, a comparative analysis can reveal some interesting things about how numerals were copied, but we should notice, first and foremost, that Nehemiah does not vouch for the accuracy of the list; he presents in (in Nehemiah 7:5) as a register which he had found; thus there is no apologetic impetus to harmonize it with the parallel list in Ezra 2, any more than there is a need to prove the truthfulness of other material which is framed by Scripture as an infallible record of statements from fallible sources.
Regarding the census-numbers in II Sam. 24 and I Chronicles 21, I believe that if you consult Eerdman’s Bible Handbook you will find the very article you referred to – “The Large Numbers of the Old Testament,” by David Wenham – and therein is a very elegant conjectural emendation that resolves the difficulty. (I have followed up on Wenham’s proposal, by the way, by offering a full conjectural regarding the population of the Hebrews at the first and second censuses; you can track that down at the Evangelical Textual Criticism website.) As for the question of who provoked David to number the military men, there is more than one way to resolve the question, but I think the best way is to view it as an example of proxy-activity, in which an act may be fairly attributed to its instigator or to its agent, in the way that a person can say, “Miss Watson sent a letter,” or, “The postman brought a letter” (i.e., the same letter from Miss Watson).
Regarding parallel passages, you are correct that we don’t always have the means to ascertain which of two accounts has the chronological sequence versus which has a thematic sequence. The case you mentioned – the order of Jesus’ three temptations – is one such case. (I think a plausible case can be made that Luke’s arrangement is thematic, but plausible is not demonstrable). In other cases, though, the differences are congruent to different levels of magnification, and do not pose any sort of discrepancy at all. For instance, it is not problematic to note that when Moses repeated the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy, he unfolded their application to that generation more explicitly than he did in Exodus 20. Similarly in the passages about the Assyrians’ seige of Jerusalem, there are many differences, but not contradictions of the substance of one account by the other.
Regarding the passages in the New Testament in which the Old Testament is quoted, a large part of the problem is not anywhere in the text, but in the assumptions that we bring to the text: we assume that quotations should be precise, overlooking several important considerations, such as (1) in ancient times, writers were frequently content to provide the gist of a passage rather than an exact quote, (2) in ancient times, some writers thematically combined quotations, without sorting out which words came from which writer, figuring that friendly readers would discern what they meant, (3) in ancient times, there was more than one Old Testament text from which quotations could be made; the Hebrew text, with its share of variants, and the more popular Septuagint, to which the apostles frequently resorted, despite its imperfections, because the alternative of establishing an improved Greek translation would have inevitably provoked a charge of text-tampering against them, and (4) in ancient times, some writers occasionally re-stated Old Testament passages through an interpretive lens, not as a way of correcting the text they were using, but as a way of applying it.
Now, in your conclusion, you asked, “How are we to explain such differences?” And as you can see, one of the answers, where some of the differences are concerned, is, “By recognizing a textual corruption.” As you say, “Faith leads us to believe the original copies of Scripture were perfect,” but it does not lead us to believe that all copyists produced perfect copies, or that any copyists produced perfect copies. We acknowledge that textual variants exist in the MSS, and this is not a statement based upon faith but upon observation. In cases where the base-text of the modern NT translations means something that the base-text of the KJV and NKJV do not mean, how is it that copyist-errors in the OT text justify an embrace of copyist-errors in the NT text? Unless your intent is to let copyists’ mistakes share the same status as the inspired text, simply because the mistakes have been around a long time, you must recognize that (1) the acknowledgement and reception of differences between one inspired account and another inspired account do not warrant the reception of differences between one inspired account and one non-inspired account, and (2) the acknowledgement of the existence of copyist-errors in the OT text does not warrant the reception of copyist-errors in the NT-text as if they are the inspired Word of God. God did not inspire messages that rival His message.
Toward the end of the “Minutiae” article, you stated, “If absolute certainty of the specific wording of a text is required to have an authoritative Bible, the King James Bible itself doesn’t measure up.” I would say that if absolute certainty of 100% of the text is required to have an authoritative Bible, then no Bible measures up, as long as the certainty involved is grounded upon scientific analysis rather than upon faith. But that does not mean that the differences between the KJV’s NT base-text and the base-texts of the modern translations are all of the same class or quality as the passages that we have reviewed. We may wonder whether it was Matthew, or Luke, whose presentation of Jesus’ temptations is thematically ordered. Although we cannot say that both of them gave the historical chronological order, we can say that each one conveys the message that God intended for each one to convey. But wherever there is a textual variant in the NT text which affects the meaning of a passage, we are *not* at liberty to say that each variant conveys the message that God intended to convey (except in a very small number of places involving word-division in scriptio continua); to say such a thing would be tantamount to assigning inspiration to the copyists.
You seem to want the differences to be trivial – to be minutiae. And many of them are. Most of them are. But hundreds of them are not, and where the unoriginal text has a meaning that is different from the meaning of the original text, it is an important prelude to exegesis to identify the original text before doing anything else. Matthew Poole was quite mistaken in his speculation that “had it been a thing of moment, the Holy Spirit of God had certainly never suffered” the copyist to make a mistake. The God who allowed the wounding and crucifixion of the Incarnate Word, and let Him be struck with a reed, is the same God who allowed His written Word to be mauled by copyists who held reed-pens in their hands. And though many of the wounds are superficial scratches, we would be blind not to see that some of them cut deep.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
I can’t help but comment on your remarks re: the difference in order between the temptation statements found in Luke vs. Matthew.
I solved that problem when I discovered the structure of both gospels. The Temptation story is also an allegory of the Gospel itself. In the Gospel Main, the part of “Satan” is played by the people (fleshly motivated blind authorities etc.).
Matthew takes Luke’s structure, and in rearranging it, he must also rearrange the parallel pattern in the Temptation Allegory.
We discovered this back in the 70s, when preparing OT quotation charts for all four gospels.
I have charts for all this, but I haven’t posted them on mr.scrivener’s website yet.
peace
Nazaroo
Hi Folks,
Looking at the list on SharperIron it is rather a
to see Matthew. 27:9-10 as the first example which gives us a good example of the difficulties of such argumenation that can even attack the integrity and truth of the preserved NT scripture.
Matthew 27:9
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet,
saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver,
the price of him that was valued,
whom they of the children of Israel did value;
The Reformation Bible and the modern versions and the Vulgate agree. 98% of the Greek texts have Jeremy and Professor Robinson has properly used this verse to show the fallacy of lectio difficilior – the pure reading has been maintained against the theory that scribes would change to an easier reading. Yet the critics like Daniel Wallace want to use the verse in the NT as the base of an attack on tangible infallibility and inerrancy !
Any proposed critics should read the section in Jerome’s commentary on Matthew, the John Gill commentary and the recent discoveries and discussions about the Apocryphon of Jeremiah – Prophecy to Pashhur.
Textcrit forum posts – 02/2010
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/5580
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/5593
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/5601
TC-Alt – 03/2010
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/3078
More can be made available.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Hi Folks,
Much of the SharperIron argumentation is based on an ultra-dubious anachronism .. assuming that orphan GOT readings in a couple of corrupt Greek Old Testament manuscripts, in a line heavily tampered and known to put in even a full section from Romans into Psalms, is actually a circulating text in Israel from pre-apostolic times. Clearly the tampering alexandrian scribes of the Greek Old Testament would find numbers the easiest change .. “smoothing” to the NT .. and any numbers that match the NT that have no support in the Targumim, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Vulgate and Peshitta, Hebrew manuscripts, early Jewish writings, even early Christian writings .. clearly can not give anything other than ultra-weak conjectural support to an argument that this was the 1st century text read by Luke and others. Especially when Josephus shows us that the historical books were not even circulating in the late 1st century.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Hi Folks,
Thanks, James. Mostly in agreement, one point stands out, however, and it is fundamental.
Will Kinney (no longer posting on forum here) has excellent articles that show that “conjectural emendation” is very unnecessary on variant after variant. It might be nice to take one example (perhaps on TC-Alt) like Timnah (which Will may not have covered and I have not researched) and show the two comparative conceptions of Bible harmony. Personally I have never seen a verse that calls for conjectural emendation for Bible harmony.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Hi Folks,
Allow me to add .. those Greek Old Testament manuscripts are no earlier than the 4th century .. allowing for at least 200 years of tampering .. in manuscripts known to be both scribally and textually corrupt.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Reply to Steve Avery on Matt. 27 (note I’ve not yet read James’ response but will when I get a chance here this morning)…
Matt. 27 actually is a case where the more difficult reading is the original reading! I don’t know how you can say it is an example against that TC dictum. One might expect some kind of correction of a perceived error by a scribe, (as might possibly be the case in Mark 1:2 if the Byzantine reading is correct there), but we don’t see that.
Hi Folks,
Two points, in a bit of reverse order.
Textcrits like Wallace use this verse to argue that inerrancy and infallibility should not be too strict, since Wallace apparently thinks Matthew 27:9 is an “error” comparable to the many modern version blunders like the swine marathon from Gerasa ! (Where there are multiple variants, one true and the others simply false geography.) Apparently he did not know the Apocryphon, Jerome, Gill etc. in making this argument.
Professor Maurice Robinson points out that the textcrit dictum would have scribes trying to modify Jeremiah in Matt. 27:9. In fact, they almost universally, in every language including Greek, Latin and Syriac, the scribes left the verse alone, ** contra the idea that scribes were always trying to smooth out the text **. In his excellent monograph on Mark 1:2 and Mark 13:14, in response to the Gordon Fee challenge, he makes this excellent point clearly. By simple reasoning, this shows that textcrits are making harder reading conjectures on other verses often simply eating out of their hat. Most of the others where they pretend to do this incredible thinking are far less potential lectio difficilior manipulations than Matthew 27:9. Hope that makes it clearer.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
That does help, Steve. Still, it isn’t universal and scribes did correct it in some cases.
Hi Folks,
True, but a matter of degree. Since the verse gives the *appearance* of the biggest, most easily correctable error in the whole New Testament (which is why Wallace foolishly tries to use it in the inerrancy discussions) you would, by modern textcrit theory, expect all sorts of scribal changes, through hundreds, or at least dozens, of Greek and Latin manuscripts, including major textual players.
What you get is virtually zilch. Why ? Simply put, contra the modernist theories, most scribes had a high fealty to the Bible text and they would be very slow to make any changes or additions without strong exemplar. (Possible exceptions, Aleph and B, who were creating abbreviated texts, and Codex Bezae who went to flights of fancy.) Most scribes simply understood the purity and value of the Bible and their texts did not have notes like “Fool and knave, leave the old reading and do not change it!” as we see in Vaticanus.
On the other hand, of course, ** omissions ** are a natural scribal occurrence. They occur accidentally for many diverse reasons and can very easily be missed. And even when unnatural, leave little trace to raise a ruckus, no one tells you about them, they are not there.
Thus Matthew 27:9 must be kept in the forefront of the mind when you hear dozens of eminently discardable discussions about “the scribe must have done this because he thought this was incorrect”. Much of that conjecture is so weak that opposing sides can be taken on the same variant, without noticing the opposite ! (A point also discussed with Professor Robinson, and I have seen in practice.) Caveat emptor.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
James Snapp,
You bring up some great points and I hope you’ll understand I wasn’t giving full conclusions in that paper. You mention spelling as an indifferent matter. However the interpretation of Matt. 5:18′s “jots and titles” leads many KJV Onlyists to assert perfect preservation in the matters of spelling. I only bring up spelling to counter that claim. I am in full agreement that spelling is all over the place in ancient times and not a big deal, but it does weigh into one’s interpretation of Matt. 5:18.
You are correct to point out that not all differences between the competing texts are as trivial as “the minutia” I refer to in the paper. Perhaps I should have been clearer on that point. I was primarily trying to take the KJVO mindset of 100% perfection in one translation and applying it to the Biblical text where we all agree.
As for textual corruption, KJVOs would never allow it, period. That being said, whether or not Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7, Mark 16:9-10, or John 7:53-8:12 are legitimately considered Scripture is a big deal. But I would content that must be decided on textual critical arguments, not some demand for perfect translations which didn’t exist prior to 1611.
Many or most of your explanations I accept. I don’t want to go into each one point by point, however. My paper is meant to show that differences and textual corruption, matters of textual criticism, are unavoidable. And our modern expectations of word perfect quotations, etc. are unsustainable when projected back on the text.
Hopefully the end result isn’t as awful as you make it seem. My argument is that others conclude differently than KJV Onlyists and they should charitably allow for differences as the matter is complex and not nice and tidy like KJVOs claim.
Does that make sense?
Hi Folks,
Bob Hayton
“whether or not Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7, Mark 16:9-10, or John 7:53-8:12 are legitimately considered Scripture is a big deal.”
Most definitely. As is the simple fact that Christians today read their versions and do not know if multi-hundreds of verses and phrases and words are the word of God or the hand of man.
Bob Hayton
“I would content that must be decided on textual critical arguments”
Why would you contend this ? Do you believe in the concepts of “textual criticism” that came to the fore in the 1800s. Concepts that (a) imply that the Bible is simply a secular book and (b) makes decisions and directions that would never be made for a secular book anyway .. such as hodge-podging wildly diverse source texts to reach a result already desired before the process.
Bob Hayton
“not some demand for perfect translations”
You are mixing apples and kumquats. The historic Reformation Bible view has little to do with a perfect Bible in any language. It simply affirms the Received Text as the pure word of God. Personally I had that view for many years before even considering whether there is an imperative for a perfect readable Bible.
Bob Hayton
” which didn’t exist prior to 1611.”
What did not exist prior to 1611 were any Bibles in use in any language that omitted the resurrection account of the Lord Jesus in the Gospel of Mark. Why should the deficient theories of 1800s modernism change the historic Bible then, or today ?
Shalom,
Steven Avery
I don’t think Steven should be allowed to use the analogy of mixing apples and kumquats, until we can be reasonably assured that he has tried them.
I’m inviting everyone over to my backyard to watch Steven eat some together. I will post a video on YouTube for those who cannot attend.
Nazaroo