Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

[Paidion]

Another fact you can check out for yourself. Find places in the New Testament that quote from the Old. Then look up the quote in the Old. You will often find them significantly different.

An example from your NKJV:
And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. 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 has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed;to proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD." Luke 4:17-19

The quote as it is in an English translation of the Septuagint:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to declare the acceptable year of the Lord ...

The quote as it is in your Old Testament
"The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD... Isaiah 61:1,2



Which of the two Old Testament translations are closest to the words that Jesus read?

Notice:
1. Jesus quote as in the NKJV: The spirit of the Lord is upon Me
---Septuagint: The spirit of the Lord us upon me
---NKJV: The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me

2. Jesus quote as in the NKJV: because He has anointed Me
---Septuagint: because he has anointed me
---NKJV: because the LORD has anointed me

But notice this SIGNIFICANT difference:
3. Jesus quote as in the NKJV: recovery of sight to the blind
---Septuagint: recovery of sight to the blind
---NKJV: opening of the prison to those who are bound

The Greek words of the quote in the New Testament are identical to those in the Septuagint at the beginning and the end. In the middle there are some differences. However, there are a number of different "versions" of the Septuagint in existence, and so there are some variations in the Greek text.

The "Old Testament" of the early church was the Septuagint, a translation from the Hebrew to Greek from the 3rd to the 1st century B.C. This translation was made from ancient Hebrew manuscripts. Jerome (347 - 420 A.D.)decided to make a translation based on Hebrew, but he used corrupted Hebrew manuscripts, and the results still show up in our Old Testaments of both Catholics and Protestants today.

However, the Greek Orthodox Church has a Bible in which the Old Testament was translated from the Septuagint. It's New Testament quotes from the Old Testament are identical to those found in its Old Testament.

[SteveF]

Hi SueAnn, I don’t know if you’re interested in aquiring books but I thought I’d share a few that I found helpful. They cover the basics for someone new to the topic:

The Origin of the Bible – It has contributions from a variety of scholars dealing with various subjects. It’s a good basic introduction.

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Bible-F-Br ... 527&sr=1-1

Essential Guide to Bible Versions – Includes a good introduction to manuscripts and textual criticism.

http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Guide-V ... 56&sr=1-13

KJV Only Controversy – If you ever encounter people who believe the KJV is the only real English Bible then this is a good resource. The side benefit is you learn about textual transmission as well.

http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Only-C ... 598&sr=1-1

The Synoptic Problem - An Introduction – A good explanation of the synoptic problem*. He also provides a compelling theory** to explain the problem. I haven’t heard a good argument against it yet….but I’m quite willing to hear one.

http://www.amazon.com/Synoptic-Problem- ... 725&sr=1-1

You can also check out Steve G's audio lecture titled "The Canon of Scripture"

http://thenarrowpath.com/mp3s/chu/chu06.mp3

*The synoptic problem is how in some places you find sticking similarities in the gospels (almost word for word at times) and yet variances in other places.

**His theory is Mark was used as a source by both Matthew and Luke. He also believes that Matthew and Luke used a common source known as Q (German for the word "source") as well. He doesn’t think Matthew and Luke used each other as a source. Stein (the author) uses the internal evidence of the Gospels themselves to make his argument.

[Paidion]

My first question comes from the very title of the thread itself. Is "Late Textual Tradition" a proper name for a given text? If so, what year was it written? (sorry if I missed that in your post)

No, it is not a proper name.

I have always thought the word "tradition" meant: family and/or social activities that take place on a regular basis-- so in terms of old copies of the Bible, that is obviously not what you mean. In terms of old writings, does the word "tradition" have a different meaning? if so, what?

No, I am using "tradition" in the same way as you. True the word can be used to denote family or social customs, but its usage is much broader than that. Remember, I mentioned that some text editors of the Greek New Testament slavishly followed the Greek text which Esrasmus back-translated from Latin, a text that used "biblos" instead of "xylon". So copying "biblos" and other words and phrases from the text of Erasmus became a "textual tradition". Fortunately some Greek text editors, for example, Westcott and Hort, broke with this tradition and consulted older Greek manuscripts as they were discovered. (By the way, "manuscript" is a contemporary word. It is not a synonym for "document", a broader term. A manuscript is a hand-written document)

Also, I assume "Early Manuscripts" is not a proper name, but rather you meant to speak of early (first writings) of manuscripts (or to use a contemporary term, documents). So to summarize, is your discussion about two proper titles of documents, or are you simply discussing first writings verses later writings?

By "early manuscripts", I refer especially to manuscripts that were made before the year 300 A.D.

[selah]

Hi SueAnn, I don’t know if you’re interested in aquiring books but I thought I’d share a few that I found helpful. They cover the basics for someone new to the topic:

The Origin of the Bible – It has contributions from a variety of scholars dealing with various subjects. It’s a good basic introduction.

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Bible-F-Br ... 527&sr=1-1

Essential Guide to Bible Versions – Includes a good introduction to manuscripts and textual criticism.

http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Guide-V ... 56&sr=1-13

KJV Only Controversy – If you ever encounter people who believe the KJV is the only real English Bible then this is a good resource. The side benefit is you learn about textual transmission as well.

http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Only-C ... 598&sr=1-1

The Synoptic Problem - An Introduction – A good explanation of the synoptic problem*. He also provides a compelling theory** to explain the problem. I haven’t heard a good argument against it yet….but I’m quite willing to hear one.

http://www.amazon.com/Synoptic-Problem- ... 725&sr=1-1

You can also check out Steve G's audio lecture titled "The Canon of Scripture"

http://thenarrowpath.com/mp3s/chu/chu06.mp3

*The synoptic problem is how in some places you find sticking similarities in the gospels (almost word for word at times) and yet variances in other places.

**His theory is Mark was used as a source by both Matthew and Luke. He also believes that Matthew and Luke used a common source known as Q (German for the word "source") as well. He doesn’t think Matthew and Luke used each other as a source. Stein (the author) uses the internal evidence of the Gospels themselves to make his argument.

Steve, thanks for this information. I do feel that I need to start with good basic introductions to the subject matter. As for Steve Gregg's site, I have listened to that lecture before but am sure it would be good for me to listen to it again. I have listened to just about everything on his site and would like to continue learning. Just his site alone---to really take in all that information---would take years.

*The synoptic problem is how in some places you find sticking similarities in the gospels (almost word for word at times) and yet variances in other places.

**His theory is Mark was used as a source by both Matthew and Luke. He also believes that Matthew and Luke used a common source known as Q (German for the word "source") as well. He doesn’t think Matthew and Luke used each other as a source. Stein (the author) uses the internal evidence of the Gospels themselves to make his argument.

As I have read, I have noticed some overlap in wording and also some seeming-contradictions, so this must be what you describe as the "synoptic problem." Very interesting comments that you provide. Thank you. I have much to think about and much to research.

God bless.

[selah]

Another fact you can check out for yourself. Find places in the New Testament that quote from the Old. Then look up the quote in the Old. You will often find them significantly different.

An example from your NKJV:
And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. 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 has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed;to proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD." Luke 4:17-19

The quote as it is in an English translation of the Septuagint:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to declare the acceptable year of the Lord ...

The quote as it is in your Old Testament
"The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD... Isaiah 61:1,2



Which of the two Old Testament translations are closest to the words that Jesus read?

Notice:
1. Jesus quote as in the NKJV: The spirit of the Lord is upon Me
---Septuagint: The spirit of the Lord us upon me
---NKJV: The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me

2. Jesus quote as in the NKJV: because He has anointed Me
---Septuagint: because he has anointed me
---NKJV: because the LORD has anointed me

But notice this SIGNIFICANT difference:
3. Jesus quote as in the NKJV: recovery of sight to the blind
---Septuagint: recovery of sight to the blind
---NKJV: opening of the prison to those who are bound

The Greek words of the quote in the New Testament are identical to those in the Septuagint at the beginning and the end. In the middle there are some differences. However, there are a number of different "versions" of the Septuagint in existence, and so there are some variations in the Greek text.

The "Old Testament" of the early church was the Septuagint, a translation from the Hebrew to Greek from the 3rd to the 1st century B.C. This translation was made from ancient Hebrew manuscripts. Jerome (347 - 420 A.D.)decided to make a translation based on Hebrew, but he used corrupted Hebrew manuscripts, and the results still show up in our Old Testaments of both Catholics and Protestants today.

However, the Greek Orthodox Church has a Bible in which the Old Testament was translated from the Septuagint. It's New Testament quotes from the Old Testament are identical to those found in its Old Testament.

Last night, I looked up Is. 61 and read it again. Your very thorough explanation (thank you!) points out something that I have only vaguely noticed. This morning, when I opened my Bible to read, I wondered how many other places are different, how different and can I trust it? My assurance is that there is enough accuracy there, and the basic truth is there, that I can proceed to read with confidence. However, learning about discrepencies within the translations and settling upon the more accurate of these is a good quest, in my opinion.

Jerome (347 - 420 A.D.)decided to make a translation based on Hebrew, but he used corrupted Hebrew manuscripts, and the results still show up in our Old Testaments of both Catholics and Protestants today.

Someday, I would like to know how one can know that Jerome used corrupted Hebrew manuscripts.

Last night, I spent a couple of hours on the "Bible Research" site. One of the many clicks took me to a chronology of scripture whereby one can see who was translating in what century. Jerome was listed there, I believe just above Augustine. Prior studies before coming to this forum have mentioned both of these men. I want to learn more about their work, but---my mind seems to want to FIRST go all the way back to the apostles first and see if there is even a glimmer of comment from within scripture itself that leads us to a non-Biblical writer who the Biblical writer points toward to assure his credibility. I hope that last sentence makes sense. The best example I can think of is in Acts 9:27, where Barnabas recommended Paul as being 'for real.' It was as if he was saying, "you can trust Paul's words." Well, eventually in Paul's life, I am hoping that he or one of the other later NT writers noted someone new to the scene as having 'words you can trust.' (I'm trying to write clearly...hope this makes sense to you...) (Now that I have written the example, I am wondering who gave Barnabas credibility to recommend Paul. After all, we don't read of Barnabas before this text, at least I don't remember reading about him...)

However, the Greek Orthodox Church has a Bible in which the Old Testament was translated from the Septuagint. It's New Testament quotes from the Old Testament are identical to those found in its Old Testament.

Now, if the OT was translated accurately for the Septuagint, this Bible you mention would be an interesting one to read. In everything, not just in Biblical studies, but in all things, I have been one to want identical cross-referencing. It's just common sense to me.

One final thought, your reference to translation in Is. 61 above reminded me of my interpretation of Is 40:3-5. I'll save this for another thread, another day, because it is more of an interpretation-difference as opposed to translation. However, if I knew that I could trust the translation to be correct, then my personal (which has been different from anyone else that I have talked to) interpretation may need to be revised---or held onto more confidently.

[selah]

I have always thought the word "tradition" meant: family and/or social activities that take place on a regular basis-- so in terms of old copies of the Bible, that is obviously not what you mean. In terms of old writings, does the word "tradition" have a different meaning? if so, what?

No, I am using "tradition" in the same way as you. True the word can be used to denote family or social customs, but its usage is much broader than that. Remember, I mentioned that some text editors of the Greek New Testament slavishly followed the Greek text which Esrasmus back-translated from Latin, a text that used "biblos" instead of "xylon". So copying "biblos" and other words and phrases from the text of Erasmus became a "textual tradition". Fortunately some Greek text editors, for example, Westcott and Hort, broke with this tradition and consulted older Greek manuscripts as they were discovered. (By the way, "manuscript" is a contemporary word. It is not a synonym for "document", a broader term. A manuscript is a hand-written document)

Also, I assume "Early Manuscripts" is not a proper name, but rather you meant to speak of early (first writings) of manuscripts (or to use a contemporary term, documents). So to summarize, is your discussion about two proper titles of documents, or are you simply discussing first writings verses later writings?

By "early manuscripts", I refer especially to manuscripts that were made before the year 300 A.D.

Okay, I understand your use of "tradition" now and it does make sense to me now that you explain. Also, thanks for reminding me of the proper use of "manuscript" verses "document." Again, this is a useful differentiation to make when considering ancient writing verses translations. Thanks...

I keep coming across this 300 A.D. timeframe which leads me to wonder why aren't there earlier versions of the NT? Are there earlier ones? You know, sometimes people in contemporary times can't keep our stories, word meanings, interpretations correct---even as hard as we may try---but we miss the mark.

So, how can we some 2000 years later, trust that manuscripts written about 300 years after Jesus ascended can be "inerrant?"
(uh oh, now I'm going to get in trouble, aren't I?

...gulp...

[Paidion]

Sue Ann, there were no "New Testaments" even as late as 300 A.D. As you probably discovered from your reading of Bible Research and your other studies (you appear to be a fervent student of these things --- fairly rare among modern Christendom), prior to 300, and even later, there was no agreement as to which Christian writings were to be read in the churches.

Probably the most early and authentic writing outside the New Testament, is Clement's letter to the Corinthians, written shortly after Paul and Peter's deaths. Clement,the writer of this letter, is believed by most authorities to have been the Clement which Paul mentions in Philippians 4:3.

This letter was widely read in the early church. I'm not sure why it was eventually rejected. It may have been Clement's reference to the Phoenix bird as a picture of the resurrection. Clement wrote as if he believed the bird actually existed in his day. But in my opinion, that fact is insufficient to reject that important letter to correct a problem of schisms in the church was existed when Paul had written his letters to them, a problem which had become much worse by the time Clement wrote to them.

The letters of Ignatius were much earlier, but the ones we have today were obviously interpolated by later writers or church leaders of a later age. For example, the present letters of Ignatius make an elder-overseer distinction, while Paul's letters indicate that he used "elder" and "overseer" interchangeably; these words denoted one and the same position.

I am privileged to possess transcripts of all extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament which were made prior to 300 A.D. Some parts of "the New Testament" are not included in any of them, while other parts are included in several. The longest papyri which contain more of the "New Testament" than any other are Papyrus 46 (made around 150 A.D.) and Papyrus 75 (made some time between 150 A.D. and 200 A.D.)

As one who has studied Hellenistic Greek for several years, and who has even had the privilege of teaching it to a beginner's adult class, my book of pre-300 A.D. transcripts is my most valuable. I have able to look up a number of passages which I consider to have been correctly copied from the original manuscript. Some of them differ significantly from later Greek manuscripts.

[dean198]

The letters of Ignatius were much earlier, but the ones we have today were obviously interpolated by later writers or church leaders of a later age. For example, the present letters of Ignatius make an elder-overseer distinction, while Paul's letters indicate that he used "elder" and "overseer" interchangeably; these words denoted one and the same position.

I don't think one can deny that Ignatius distinguished elders and bishops; it is quite fundamental to his arguments, and is found in every recension of his works. Both terms were quite flexible in the apostolic period, with both applied to apostles as well as leaders within the congregations. But by the time Ignatius wrote, at least in Asia Minor (and within just a few years of the death of John) it had become the custom to refer to the successors of the apostles as 'overseers' to distinguish them from elders in a church, and to avoid calling them apostles. This is what we learn from Theodoret, a fourth-century bishop of Cyprus:

The same persons were anciently called both bishops and presbyters, while those which are now called bishops were called apostles; but shortly afterwards, the name of apostles was appropriated to those who were apostles indeed, and then the name bishop was given to those before called apostles.
Commentary on 1 Timothy 3.1

This distinction of office is seen in the pastoral epistles - in these letters, Paul charges individuals to exercise authority over a church, or even multiple churches, to ordain elders, and even to remove them from office if need be. Therefore they were, to use hierarchical language, over the elders, and had greater authority. Paul did not delegate this authority to the body of elders, or to the congregation, but to individuals to whom he entrusted this charge. This is the origin of episcopal church government, and when Ignatius wrote to the churches, he doesn't invent it, but he simply speaks of what was already well-established.

[selah]

Another fact you can check out for yourself. Find places in the New Testament that quote from the Old. Then look up the quote in the Old. You will often find them significantly different.
...
The "Old Testament" of the early church was the Septuagint, a translation from the Hebrew to Greek from the 3rd to the 1st century B.C. This translation was made from ancient Hebrew manuscripts. Jerome (347 - 420 A.D.)decided to make a translation based on Hebrew, but he used corrupted Hebrew manuscripts, and the results still show up in our Old Testaments of both Catholics and Protestants today.

However, the Greek Orthodox Church has a Bible in which the Old Testament was translated from the Septuagint. It's New Testament quotes from the Old Testament are identical to those found in its Old Testament.

Hi Paidion,

I read something today about your comments above. I suspect, as you say above, "the results still show up in our Old Testaments of both Catholics and Protestants today" show up within the KJV and the NKJV?

After several hours of reading other sources, I listed some questions that I have at this time---not that anyone has to answer them... I'm just putting them "out there"...

...but then, as I re-read previous recent posts on this thread, I see reference to some of my questions. I'm trying to make sense of it all...

Paidion, your reference in the quote above about Jerome answers some of my question about him. I would think that Jerome did a trustworthy thing when he translated from the Hebrew itself, (thus creating? what is known as the Vulgate (common Bible)?, so why would the Vulgate be rejected by protestant churches?) Apparently, based upon what you stated above, the answer to that question is that it is agreed the Hebrew manuscript that Jerome translated from, has been determined to be "corrupt."

What follows are a few other questions that I have about the Vulgate. By the way, at this time, my rudimentary definition/memory of what the Vulgate is, is....and I'm probably wrong, but here goes: The Vulgate is the common Bible, translated by Jerome using a corrupt version of original Hebrew OT, adding in the Apocrypha and eventually, the Vulgate was used in producing the KJV. (I am trying to NOT plagiarize the writings that I read offline today due to obvious rules against this. In my efforts to speak in my own words, my statements above may be confusing or even inaccurate.)

I read enough today to have more unanswered questions about the Vulgate:
A. Why did Luther and Calvin reject the Vulgate?
B. When was the Apocrypha added to the Vulgate (was it by Jerome, as I suspect?) and what other major changes were occurring within Church history at that time?
C. Is the Vulgate a “traditional medieval text”? Was the KJV based upon the Vulgate? In other words, was the KJV translated from a traditional medieval text known as the Vulgate?

I realize some of these questions are repetitive and a paraphrase of an earlier question so I admit to my limits trying to learn this stuff from a distance.
Below are more questions which I wrote in my notes based upon today's reading and musings...
1. Is it true that elders in separate towns or provinces, who had no contact with one another, came to the same decisions regarding which manuscripts belong in the canon of scripture? The article I read earlier (off forum reading) seemed to indicate this as fact.
2. Why is there no record of manuscripts before the year 170 A.D.?
3. Why is the Book of Thomas rejected as authoritative scripture?
4. Why accept Jude, when he quoted from writings which were rejected as scripture, when other writers who did not quote from accepted-scripture were accepted?
5. I learned today that the Septuagint is a Greek translation of the OT that the Jews translated about 200 years before Jesus was born. It is said to be accurate except for Isaiah and Jeremiah. What corrections within Isaiah and Jeremiah are needed? Where do we go for the correct versions? What is the earliest version?
6. I also learned that the apostles supposedly quoted from the Septuagint, indicating their trust in the textual translation, or at least not considering the errors to be extreme. When they did change the text, they may have done so because in that instance, they suspected—or knew—that the Septuagint was faulty. Is this true?

If so, wouldn't this contradict what I learned earlier on this thread--that being quotes found in the NT have been reported to be faulty translations/quotes from the OT? Perhaps they are not faulty translations after all, if is true that the writers "changed" the OT quote to be, in their estimation, accurate in the NT.

I'm just thinking out loud, okay? not contesting anyone's understanding, just seeking more substance to base my understanding on.

[Paidion]

The bishop-elder distinction was not indicated by Paul at all. Paul spoke of elders as ruling in the local church:

1 Timothy 5:17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

The elders or overseers were sometimes simply called "brethren". The local overseers even had authority over the apostle Paul!

Acts 17:10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Acts 17:14 Then immediately the brethren sent Paul out to go as far as the sea; and Silas and Timothy remained there.

Paul's fellow helper, Clement of Rome (30-100 A.D.), wrote a letter to the Corinthians shortly after Paul and Peter's death. In chapter 44, he refers to "elders" as being in the episcopate. He wrote:

For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessl and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure.

Clement was talking about men of the same office in the second sentence as in the first. He was saying that those who had already died, are blessed since they didn't have to put up with the young upstarts of his day who wanted to eject the overseers out of envy, and become overseers themselves.

I don't think the elder-overseer distinction had yet been made in the days of Ignatius. Many think that none of Ignatius' authentic writings have survived. Others believe that both recensions are heavily interpolated. Both recensions place the overseer on a spiritual pedestal and instruct the churches to regard him as they would Jesus Christ Himself! No early writer does this. This smacks of later catholicism.

The so-called writings of Ignatius also make it clear that there was but a single overseer in each church, where as in the apostolic church there was a council of overseers.