Mars Man

Whether some god gave it or not, I do not know, but we do have the power of reason, and reason that it best be used--we all know the old adage, 'use it or loose it' (which neurology clearly backs up !) I respect the use of it on this thread, along with wit and humor. . .let's see what transpires.

praxeus, thanks for the replies there. Please do forgive me for not being so clear in my wording, but the intended communication was to have applied that afterthought, 'whatever that may technically involve' towards the term 'inspired'. rather than to the whole clause. Yet, I will consider that question which came out of your mind there.

Regarding the KJV, I do have AS, NAS, NRSV, and the KJV. I was talking about the KJV, but I figure it would do well to check it out some more, so I will get back with you on that. Thanks for that great link there, I'll use it.

In looking at NA 27, there may well be a lot of things to take into consideration, which would take some sound and carefull thought. I wouldn't dismiss the value of P45-47 (Chester Beatty Papyri) tentatively dated to around the early third century, and which has been stated to very well represent the text of Wescott and Hort by Dr. Barbara Aland. (the earliest gospels, edited by Charles Horton; T&T Clark International; pp 2 (Sean Freyne), 108)

Appreciate the input ISVfan, thanks. I would seriously doubt, however, that the hand that went into the 2 Timothy we have would have been referring to anything other than some form of some number of LXX scrolls. Of course it would be wrong, as suggested by praxeus, to consider that that Timothy would have read anything of the like from childhood; that was surely just a slip of tongue, so to speak. The synagogue format, much like that of early Christianity would surely have been listening to readings, so that Timothy would have known about LXX liturgically. oidas (oidas) does mean basically 'have known' rather than have read.

I would be interested in knowing just a little more detail about this 'modernist' concept, but of course, not here on this thread--I sense we are already kind of stretching the plausible theme-related-range a tid bit.... :thumbs:

Apikorus

In the consonantal text there are only a few hundred differences between the Leningradensis and Bomberg. Most of the differences are in the niqudot, spacings, trope, etc.

I believe only about 5% of the biblical DSS were of the LXX text type (see e.g. Schiffman, "Reclaiming the DSS").

At any rate, if you acknowledge the existence of other ancient families of HB texts, why would you insist that "any Hebrew Masoretic text" (a redundant term -- the masora are not in English!) is perfect? (Another odd/redundant expression you use is "Vorlage text" -- scholarly term is simply "Vorlage".)

Incidentally, Ehrman is now Metzger's co-author on the 4th edition of "The Text of the New Testament". So when you recommend this book you are recommending Ehrman. As I said, Ehrman's popular book is quite nice, and gives the novice a good feel for some of the issues and criteria used in the text critical apparatus. You might try reading before passing judgment.

ISVfan

Likewise

I would agree completely. The Papyri are extremely important mss. And once again you are correct they do support the Alexandrian text and that is the text that Westcott and Hort were fond of. Although I would say the NA 27 does not just accept Alexandrian reading as being original it (generally using the rules of Textual Critiscism) chooses the reading we feel is the closest reading to the original.

No problem it's something I'm probably to fond of putting my 2cents worth in. Again I agree that the synagogue format was listening to the OT be read and it probably was the LXX. Since Greek was what the world spake at the time. Very good ya even know some Greek (that's all I know is a little) I'm impressed yes my lexionary says that 'have known' is what the word means in it's truest form. Which again proves as you have said that Paul or the writer of Timothy probably listened to the OT being read.

Sure feel free to start a thread some time and we can discuss the 'modernist' viewpoint :angel:

ISVfan

Ok I understand. I was considering the vowel text.

Ok first Vorlage text is an acceptable scholarly term as there is a family or group of texts known as the Vorlage. Also yes there are other existing HB texts but are there any that read enough a like to form a family or certain reading. No. About the Hebrew Masoretic text isn't that kinda of nitpicky. But yes I accept the Masoretic texts as being the best.

I didn't say don't read Ehrman's book I was just recommending everyone also read Metzger as he is an excellent Textual Critic and has laid some of the ground work.

Apikorus

No, you don't understand what "Vorlage" means. The Vorlage of a translation is the template, i.e. the text that lay before the translator. There is no "family or group of texts known as the Vorlage." Such a statement betrays an ignorance of basic concepts in textual criticism. The Vorlage of the LXX (or of various books of the LXX) was a Hebrew text from which the LXX was translated. What we know from Qumran is that some 5% of the biblical DSS are of the LXX family, which means that after retroverting the LXX back to Hebrew, there is significant (but hardly complete) agreement with these DSS fragments.

So why do you believe the MT is the best? There are many places where the MT is quite corrupt (e.g. Samuel, Hosea, parts of Exodus) and where the LXX provides a superior reading (see e.g. McCarter's commentary on I and II Samuel in the Anchor Bible series). I would say that generally the MT is the most reliable text of the HB we have, but reconstructed hybrids which draw on other ancient witnesses are better still. This is what the enterprise of textual criticism is all about.

Ani choshev she'ata lo yodea likro ivrit...

Steven Avery

Hi Apikorous. I am a bit puzzled here, since you are framing your discussion in a textual criticism framework. Would not most of these supposed corruptions likely be the original reading, using the lectio difficilior postulate as a major base for analysis.

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

Apikorus

Why the puzzlement? It is clear that the text of the Hebrew Bible was pluriform in ancient times; the DSS attest to this quite strongly. Additionally, there are a wide variety of scribal errors which have accreted, the simplest being parablepsis due to things like homoioteleuton and homoioarcton. (E.g. an entire paragraph at the beginning of 1 Sam 11 fell out of the text.) There is substantial `macular degeneration' (to use Cross's term) in books like Hosea. Other books, such as Leviticus, are in pretty good shape (probably because they are relatively late).

As for the criterion of lectio dificilior, this is one of many in the arsenal of the text critic. The idea is to ask "what reading best explains other readings as variants?" It is generally applied to single words or phrases, rather than, say to the huge differences between the LXX and MT of Jeremiah, Samuel, or Daniel.

Ben shanah shaul b'malkho, ushtei shanim malakh al-yisrael. This is a famously corrupted passage from the MT. This notice is defective in all surviving witnesses (and is completely absent from the Vaticanus). Can you provide a reading? Do you even read biblical Hebrew?

Julian

You cannot know this for sure.

Quote:

And I assume you know not one single doctine of the Church is affected by that 1.5% I will give you an example Luke 17:36 is only in 10 mss the other 5490 leave this verse out. Now there is only two readings there so we know one is right.

You don't know this. Maybe neither is correct. We know that the MSS were modified from the moment the autographs were completed. Even the earliest MSS show severe signs of redaction in favor of various christian trajectories.

Quote:

And obviously in this case we know which one is the original reading. If you ask for proof if the text was not changed before it was cannonized then I can only say I have faith God preserved it until then.

Which is fine if that makes you happy but faith has no place in a scholarly discussion of textual criticism. If you wish to claim a lack of corruption prior to the first MSS then you will have to provide some rational reason for that fact.

Julian

Julian

praxeus, I had a number of reactions to your statements, none of which I can post since they would be edited by the mods. So I guess I will simply do this: :rolling:

Julian

Julian

I am sure that you are aware that Metzger is on the UBS committee. Are you also aware that he frequently disagrees with the others but is voted down? Aland displays a certain amount of irritation with him. The UBS4/NA27 shows an unfortunate evangelical/traditionalist tendency because of this. I agree that Metzger is an excellent scholar and worth reading.

I can strongly endorse Bart Ehrman as a scholar as competent as Metzger. His Orthodox Corruption of Scripture shows the ways how and, more importantly, the reasons why the NT writings were messed around with in the first centuries. I strongly suggest that you read it, ISVfan. Don't worry, it won't kill you. Hey, I read much by Metzger, you can stand a little Ehrman.

I suggest Swanson's criticial editions instead of UBS/NA because he shows all the reading and makes no choices as to which is correct.

Julian