Apikorus

Julian, nice to meet you.

ISVfan and praxeus would benefit from reading the popular book by Ehrman which I recommended, "Misquoting Jesus." Therein, Ehrman provides a history of NT transmission and criticism, from Origen to Westcott and Hort. He provides and discusses several examples of instances in which scribes altered the text of the NT. He discusses, albeit briefly, the history of the TR and why it is a poor text in many respects.

Two points in particular should give any inerrantist pause. Firstly, many ancient texts (esp. letters) were dictated. If the scribe taking the dictation mis-heard a word or phrase, it is very possible that an error crept into the autograph of a given document. Secondly, the early Christian tradents were generally unsophisticated and untrained in scribal techniques. It was only when Christianity vaulted to the position of the Roman state religion, in the 4th century, that it ceased to be a religion 'of women and slaves' and started to attract the affluent and educated to its ranks. As a consequence, many of the earliest NT fragments are among the most corrupt.

John A. Broussard

I've looked for your answer to the following but can't seem to find it. Would you answer my post again?

Thank you.


How strange.

I've heard others, with yet different versions of the bible, say essentially the same thing.

Who shall I believe, and why?

Julian

Likewise.
Anything by Ehrman is excellent. I have three of his books but not the one you mention. I just finished reading his Lost Christianities and found it very interesting despite a few uncharacteristic 'blunders.'

I shall put your recommendation on my wishlist.

I should point out that the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture is of a fairly technical nature and the first time I tried to read it, I gave up. After having acquired knowledge of Greek, textual criticism and early christian history, especially gnosticism, I read it again and was highly rewarded. I plan to re-read it soon.

Julian

Steven Avery

Sure, that does not mean that there were not exemplars, as in the Temple.

Apikorus, I simply don't understand your logic here. You claim an entire paragraph fell out of every Hebrew Bible because of transcription type errors ? How could that be ?

And what is your evidence that anything dropped out, simply the fact that one DSS scroll has a paragraph found in no other text ? Is there a Talmudic discussion of the paragraph ? A Targum ? Is it in our Latin or even the Greek translations from 200 to 400 AD ? All we have is an indication that Josephus had some familiarity (either from text or auxiliary tradition) with the information in the paragraph.

Thin, a wafer-thin analysis, and made worse by ascribing this supposed universal paragraph deletion to...
" parablepsis due to things like homoioteleuton and homoioarcton."

How about shaving with Occam, some zealous scribe simply adding the paragraph in to a manuscript, based on auxiliary traditions.

Sure, but you yourself have been going back and forth between major textual differences, and the minor differences like possible transcription errors. Many of the discussed differences between the texts are actually single words, where a simple analysis best supports a Greek OT smoothing to eliminate some perceived error. This occurs sometimes on the numerical questions, but a simple example is the addition of Canaan to some Greek OT manuscripts to match Luke in the NT.

When I asked you the question, I was referring to the word and phrase issues, not the big chapter differences, quite obviously.

1 Samuel 13:1
Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel...

This is a typical example of textual criticism manufacturing a new text simply because they don't like the way it reads, and the verse offers an exegesis and chronological challenge. So they manufacture a new text based on zero real evidence, zilch. That is the sad state of today's textual criticism.

John Gill agrees with the understanding of the text given by ben Gersom (apparently Naphtali Herz ben Gersom of Worms, from the disputations)

John Gill
"The sense Ben Gersom gives is best of all, that one year had passed from the time of his being anointed, to the time of the renewal of the kingdom at Gilgal; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, then he did what follows, chose 3000 men. In the first year of his reign was done all that is recorded in the preceding chapter; and when he had reigned two years, not two years more, but two years in all, then he did what is related in this chapter."

Fortunately the Hebrew copyists maintained a fealty to the text, and would leave alone (here in every copy) even what might be apparent difficulties.

And nope, I never claimed to have more than Hebrew school as a kid.

I've found that logic and common sense are far more important in these discussions than the technical ins and outs. There are 100 realms of technical study, and many of the better experts are quite accessible, and they generally know a lot more than the web scholars. On various issues I have gathered answers from Maurice Robinson, Emanuel Tov, Karen Jobe and many others, some known, some unknown. Our problem is not one of technical expertise, but a heart for God and a sound mind.

2Timothy 1:7
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear;
but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

The computer puppy ate my homework on this one last night.

The primary textual issue is the Textus Receptus Bibles vs. the modern versions (WH/NA text bible version, there are hundreds of them). These are the versions that JW and the skeptics because they are the duckshoot text, loaded with errors (the reason for that I discussed back around May).

So, John, have you ever hard anybody say "the same thing" about *ANY* modern version text in any language ? ..

"This Bible (in my hand) is the infallible and preserved Word of God, 100% accurate and true, inerrant, and with authority"

If you can find me any modernversionist saying anything close to that I will be flabbergasted. Then of course they would also defend that view, while stating it plainly and publicly.

That one, I await your answer.

(You may be referencing some other realm of language Bibles, Aramaic or Latin or whatever, if you are then I will discuss that in a subsequent post, after we discuss the fundamental issue).

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

John A. Broussard

Yup.

I have it in hand.

It's called the Douay bible, and a fellow named Benedict XVI will back up that statement for it. It even has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur in the front.

If that won't do, I'm sure I can run down Christians who will back the KJV in much the same way.

In fact, there was someone somewhere on this forum who said that if the King James Version was good enough for Christ, it's good enough for him.

Apikorus

I'd commend you to read Cross on 1 Sam 11:1. This is pretty much a slam-dunk. Josephus knows about the previous eye-gouging which is in the paragraph from 4QSam(a), so the Qumran text is unlikely an original gloss. Moreover, throughout the Deuteronomistic History, in every single other instance in which a foreign ruler is first mentioned, he is introduced as X king of Y. 1 Sam 11:1 is the sole exception. 4QSam(a) uses the formula Nahash melekh bnei Ammon (as in 1 Sam 12:12).


Oy! This is just the lousy KJV translation. Back to kita alef for you!

First of all, a degree of skepticism should be reserved for the likes of John Gill and my medieval rabbinic ancestors (though I am quite fond of the Rashbam, pashtan that he was). Fettered by confessional stance, they are/were inclined to harmonize the text where problems occur. The tradition of harmonization is of course ancient and is reflected in the Hebrew Bible itself (e.g. the postexilic author of Chronicles harmonizes many conflicting data from the Deuteronomistic History -- who killed Goliath, Samuel's tribal affiliation, etc.)

The Hebrew for Saul reigned one year would be ben-shanah Shaul malakh. Note also there is a vav introducing 1 Sam 13:2 ("And Saul chose for himself three thousand men..."), which makes ben Gershom's convoluted reading unlikely. (Note how the KJV tendentiously leave off the "And" at the beginning of 13:2, to conform to its equally bad translation of 13:1.) I could go on...

Ah, but of course.

Steven Avery

Well, it seems you abandoned without comment your earlier transcription error explanation.

As mentioned, this paragraph could have easily been an auxiliary traditional understanding. Which came into some texts, and with which Josephus was familiar, either from such a text or without. Note that it has ZILCH textual support among the Hebrew, Latin and Peshitta and Targum and Greek OT texts. We have it in simply in one extant DSS text, and you want to make it the true text against overwhelming manuscript evidence. You are the Tanach equivalent of Westcott and Hort, in a sense, always looking to muck up the historic received text on a whim and a fancy.

Right.. he is mentioned as king.
1Samuel 12:12
But when you saw that Nahash king of the Ammonites was coming against you, you said to me, 'No, we must have a king rule over us'-even though the Lord your God is your king.

And it took about one minute to find a counter-example to your theory.

Numbers 22:2
Now Balak son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites.

Numbers 22:4
...Since Balak son of Zippor was Moab's king at that time,

Does Cross really say that ? Where do they get this stuff ?

Most assuredly. And skeptics always try to dis-harmonize the text, and textual liberals manufacture texts from flimsy to no evidence.

I notice you give no substantive basis for changing 1 Samuel 13:1 away from the Masoretic Text, which was your big claim.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Yup. The RCC is about as close as you can get, and there almost-stranglehold on the Bible led to the Reformation. They generally only nuance the Latin.

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineSt...ing&st=41&sd=0
"Moreover, the same Holy Council . . . ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputatious, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and so no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it." (Fourth Session, April 8, 1546). As Pope Pius XII stated in his 1943 encyclical letter Divino Afflante Spiritu, this means the Vulgate is "free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals." And the Douay-Rheims bible is a faithful, word-for-word translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible of St. Jerome.

This is still a lot weaker than full inerrancy, as it allows for all sorts of geographical and historical and logical errors, but it as close as you can get.

It is a very good exercise to actually compare the RCC Bible, and the historic Reformation Bibles, since that has been the major textual issue only the modern version fiasco of the late 19th century. It is rare however today for any RCC folks to really defend the Douay, even in Latin, as the RCC church has been translating from other texts.

The dichotomy of the two lines was so strong that the RCC even put the Textus Receptus on the "Index of Forbidden Books". It was still there in the mid-20th century, not sure about today.

As I explained to you the King James Bible position is far stronger than the RCC Douay position, however I accept that as the real dichotomy in Bible lines.

The modernversions are simply defended by nobody. We should agree to simply discard them in inerrancy discussions.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Apikorus

Bzzzt! Numbers is not part of the Deuteronomistic History. Try to read more carefully next time.

The plus in 1 Sam 11 was known to Josephus. Furthermore, as Ulrich has shown, in several other instances Josephus transmits a text which is identical with 4QSam(a).

Remind me...what is the date of these witnesses as compared with 4QSam(a)?