Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

[selah]

Paidion,

You have been very gracious to share with me, and I have learned a great deal more than I knew, in just a short time. And kaufmannphillips, I appreciate your recent input too. However, I am going to take a few days to think about your posts because if I continue in this conversation, I'm going to have to start all over with asking for definitions, dates, names, etc.

It's been real fun though! And I'll probably be back--after I read more...and visit some websites...

...thank you so much,
SueAnn*

[Apollos]

What are the criteria for obtaining a New Testament Greek edition which approximates that of the original manuscripts prepared by the hands of the writers?

I don't actually see any criteria given in this post. Criteria would involve theories of textual transmission and principals for accepting some readings and rejecting others. Yet in this post, the Byzantine tradition ("text editors of the middle ages") has been rejected on the basis of the unreliability of the Received Text, which is not the same. That is not a criterion. Next we have the assumption that manuscripts that have survived (in Egypt, because of climate) are better because they have survived, whereas divergent traditions which we know existed in other parts of the world at the time are not as good, because they didn't survive. This introduces the invisible criterion of "if it was dug up in the 19/20th centuries, then it is original, but if it perished long before, it wasn't". Yet it was suggested that the criterion was age, not preservation ("as early as the first three centuries"), yet this isn't the case. I think a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I don't claim to have this all figured out - not even close. But we do need to recognize that these things are complex and need careful examination. That begins at least by faithfully representing those we disagree with, or positions we are inclined against.

[selah]

What are the criteria for obtaining a New Testament Greek edition which approximates that of the original manuscripts prepared by the hands of the writers?

I don't actually see any criteria given in this post. Criteria would involve theories of textual transmission and principals for accepting some readings and rejecting others. Yet in this post, the Byzantine tradition ("text editors of the middle ages") has been rejected on the basis of the unreliability of the Received Text, which is not the same. That is not a criterion. Next we have the assumption that manuscripts that have survived (in Egypt, because of climate) are better because they have survived, whereas divergent traditions which we know existed in other parts of the world at the time are not as good, because they didn't survive. This introduces the invisible criterion of "if it was dug up in the 19/20th centuries, then it is original, but if it perished long before, it wasn't". Yet it was suggested that the criterion was age, not preservation ("as early as the first three centuries"), yet this isn't the case. I think a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I don't claim to have this all figured out - not even close. But we do need to recognize that these things are complex and need careful examination. That begins at least by faithfully representing those we disagree with, or positions we are inclined against.

Apollos, thanks for your post. I read the thread twice during this weekend, so I will try to very briefly explain my uneducated and very brief summary of a part of this post. The discussion is in examining the criteria used to compare "late textual traditons" verses "early manuscripts." I think the focus is questioning whether we should accept the Babylonian text or Egyptian text as the more accurate original Old Testament writing.

One criteria under examination is the use of quotes in the New Testament, specifically seeking to see if they are quoted word-for-word from the OT. Another aspect that was discussed involves the writers AFTER the apostles died. For instance, if I understand it correctly once Jerome copied the Babylonian text into the Latin Vulgate, church fathers/followers continued the tradition of adhereing to that translation (or any translation coming from later translations.)

I'm probaby oversimplifying this, but I think it is postulated that the NT quotes should say the same message (words) that the OT scripture says.

[selah]

Paidion wrote:

“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.

I am taking Paidion up on this challenge to test the scriptures. The purpose for the challenge is to compare the Old Testament scripture of Isaiah 61: 1-2 to the New Testament quote found in Luke 4: 17-19. Also, I hope to determine which Bible versions below are translated from the Babylonian text and which versions are translated from the Egyptian-Hebrew text.

There are five Bible versions being compared at this time. They are the King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (KITGS) and the New World Translation (NWT), the latter two being published by the Watchtower of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

A New Testament and Old Testament comparison of Luke 4: 17-19 and Isaiah 61: 1-2 translations:

KJV—OT Is. 61:1-2, (1) The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings among the meek, he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and opening of the prison to them that are bound. (2) To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;”
KJV— NT quote: (Luke 4: 17-19) (17) And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias, And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, (18) “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, (19) To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.” NT

NKJV— OT Is. 61:1-2, (1) 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; (2) To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn;
NKJV—NT quote: (Luke 4:17-19) (17) 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: (18) “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 preach deliverance to the captives, And recovery of sight to the blind. To set at liberty those who are oppressed, (19) to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.”

RSV— OT Is. 61:1-2, (I do not have the RSV Old Testament. Can someone post it for me? Thanks.)
RSV—NT quote: (Luke 4:17-19) (17) and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written, (18) “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, (19) to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”

KITGS—OT Is. 61:1-2, (I do not have the equivalent of the KITGS Old Testament. Can someone post it for me? Thanks.)
KITGS— NT quote: (Luke 4:17-19) (17) And was given upon (hand) to him scroll of the prophet Isaiah, and having opened the scroll he found the place where it was having been written (18) “Spirit of Lord upon me, of which on account he anointed me to declare good news to poor (ones), he has sent off me to preach to captives letting go off and to blind (ones) looking again to send off (ones) having been crushed in release, (19) to preach year of Lord acceptable,”

NWT— OT Is. 61:1-2, (1)The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah is upon me, for the reason that Jehovah has anointed me to tell good news to the meek ones. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to those taken captive and the wide opening of the eyes even to the prisoners, (2) to proclaim the year of goodwill on the part of Jehovah and the day of vengeance on the part of our God, to comfort all the mourning ones.”
NWT—NT quote: (Luke 4:17-19) (17) So the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed him, and he opened the scroll and found the place where it was written (18) “Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor, he sent me for the to preach a release to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away with a release. (19) to preach Jehovah’s acceptable year.”

Observations:
Each of the NT Bible quotes compared above contain paraphrases of Isaiah 61:1-2.

It is unclear to me if any of these translations used the Egyptian-Hebrew text (Septuagint?) as its translation source.

Paidion wrote:

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

Questions:
1. What is the name of the Bible that the Greek Orthodox Church has?
2. (((((EDIT: I deleted the question because my presupposition was mistaken. I believe the fact is that the first five books of the Bible are called the Pentateuch. --spelling?-- )))
3. Would exact quotes in the NT offer more credibility to the OT translation? Which quotes are crucial to theology? Are they all crucial or is there anyplace for paraphrase? Why or why not?

Thanks, and may our Father bless you in Jesus’ name,
SueAnn*

[kaufmannphillips]

Hi, selah,

1. What is the name of the Bible that the Greek Orthodox Church has?

For the New Testament, The Greek Orthodox church uses the original language and a Byzantine text. For the Old Testament, it uses the Septuagint.

(((((EDIT: I deleted the question because my presupposition was mistaken. I believe the fact is that the first five books of the Bible are called the Pentateuch. --spelling?-- )))

You deleted the question, but I will include part of my answer to it here:

There is only one Septuagint. Paidion has referred to "Babylonian" and "Egyptian" text-types for the Hebrew Old Testament. These would be different families, more or less like the Byzantine and Alexandrian families in New Testament studies. I find the labels that Paidion used to be problematic, and they are not in common use. I would prefer labelling the two families as proto-Masoretic and proto-Septuagintal. That is, one family appears to precede the tradition that gave us the Masoretic Hebrew text; and one family appears to precede the tradtition that gave us the Greek Septuagint.

[selah]

I would prefer labelling the two families as proto-Masoretic and proto-Septuagintal. That is, one family appears to precede the tradition that gave us the Masoretic Hebrew text; and one family appears to precede the tradtition that gave us the Greek Septuagint.

Hi kaufmannphillips,

Going back to Paidion's labels and considering yours too, I would guess that what you are calling "proto-Masoretic," would be known as the Babylonian text from which came the Latin Vulgate, and what you're calling "proto-Septuagintal," would be known as the Egyptian/Hebrew text. The latter would be the OT version that NT writers quoted. Right?

A more general question is this: What makes one tradition more or less correct than the other? Does the "fact" that the Greek Septuagint quotes OT scripture word-for-word (if in fact, it always does) lend to its accuracy, or does it reflect the copiest's additions and omissions of NT original text? In other words, do you think the NT copiest thought the quotes should be exact, so he wrote them (in the Septuagint) that way? Whereas the Masoretic copiests were more comfortable with variations and paraphrases among quotes, so he allowed the copied manuscript to read such variations and paraphrases?

A far more reaching question is this: What criteria do we use to determine the accuracy of OT text? Should the fact that it is quoted word-for-word in the Septuagint bring credibility for THAT OT text? What other criteria might be more convincing?

It seems to me, based on your factors listed in another post in this thread, that a person could get bogged down into nuances and "issues" with each and every verse, or even many phrases, trying to consider all of the many factors that you named. How have you simplified this? Moreover, since you wrote on this thread that you are not a Christian, I have the privilage of asking you, of what benefit does pondering the accuracy of scripture provide the non-Christian?

Until last spring, I did not know anything about the dispute (allbeit friendly*:) as to accurate texts. I accepted the KJV and NKJV (finally....) when I decided to follow Jesus. From that time forward, I figured the Bible as I knew it was at the very least, a more accurate compass for life than my thoughts! Now I am just curious enough to want to listen to others' points of view. I hope to hear from you!

Selah*

[Jill]

.

[kaufmannphillips]

Hi, selah -

Going back to Paidion's labels and considering yours too, I would guess that what you are calling "proto-Masoretic," would be known as the Babylonian text from which came the Latin Vulgate, and what you're calling "proto-Septuagintal," would be known as the Egyptian/Hebrew text. The latter would be the OT version that NT writers quoted. Right?

(a) Speaking broadly, yes. But:

We might think of these as “families” of similar manuscripts, rather than monolithic texts.

NT writers do not use a Septuagintal form in every instance.

When NT writers quote the Septuagint, they are quoting a Greek version of a Hebrew or Aramaic precursor. This Greek version may differ in some respects from the Hebrew or Aramaic text-type that it derives from. This is a normal aspect of translations.

One may ask, then – in various cases – whether the NT writers know the Hebrew or Aramaic precursor, and are just quoting it in the familiar form of the Greek Septuagint; or whether they are quoting the Septuagint without any knowledge of how closely it may or may not correspond to a Hebrew or Aramaic source.

So when NT writers quote the Greek Septuagint, they may or may not be quoting the “Egyptian/Hebrew” text itself.

(b) Part of the problem with using the labels of “Babylonian” and “Egyptian” is that we do not know if these text-types originated in Babylon or Egypt. Also, there is theological baggage attached to these locations, which might unduly influence people’s opinions of the text-types.

selah wrote:
A more general question is this: What makes one tradition more or less correct than the other? Does the "fact" that the Greek Septuagint quotes OT scripture word-for-word (if in fact, it always does) lend to its accuracy, or does it reflect the copiest's additions and omissions of NT original text? In other words, do you think the NT copiest thought the quotes should be exact, so he wrote them (in the Septuagint) that way? Whereas the Masoretic copiests were more comfortable with variations and paraphrases among quotes, so he allowed the copied manuscript to read such variations and paraphrases?

A far more reaching question is this: What criteria do we use to determine the accuracy of OT text? Should the fact that it is quoted word-for-word in the Septuagint bring credibility for THAT OT text? What other criteria might be more convincing?

Your remarks here are somewhat confusing, but I will try to respond.

The Septuagint (a popular Greek version of the OT) predates the NT. We do not know if NT writers quoted it basically because it was convenient, familiar, and/or respected; or if when they quoted it, they had carefully considered different text-types and felt that the Septuagint was based upon a more accurate text-type of the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures.

I do not approach pursuit of the most-accurate form of the text through tabulating criteria. Rather, I plumb the options from a number of different angles.

Which manuscripts support which variants, and what are their tendencies and sorts of character? Do they tend to include a lot of curious variants? Are they carefully or sloppily transcribed? How ancient are they? Were they found with other documents that suggest their owner and/or scribe was a peculiar sort?

Are there reasonable explanations that would account for one variant arising in the wake of another? Is one variant an apparent mistake for another? Does one variant smooth over a theological problem posed by the other? Does one variant improve on the style of another? Does one variant suit the sensibilities of a later context? Does one variant embroider another, or include data from a parallel story in another document?

When it seems reasonable to prefer one or more variants, I may do so. I am also open to considering an intuitive or even mystical sense of which direction to lean. But it is important that I keep clear in my mind whether my method is rational, intuitive, mystical, or some combination thereof.

selah wrote:
It seems to me, based on your factors listed in another post in this thread, that a person could get bogged down into nuances and "issues" with each and every verse, or even many phrases, trying to consider all of the many factors that you named. How have you simplified this?

It can be slow going. But some things are not up for simplification. If a patient needs arterial bypass surgery, or if a military-grade code needs to be broken, these things will take time and require attention to detail.

But naturally there are practical limits to what one can pursue. I do not track down every question in the bible in the most thorough manner. There are some parts within the bible and some issues that do not interest me very much, so I am less likely to attend to them.

selah wrote:
Moreover, since you wrote on this thread that you are not a Christian, I have the privilage of asking you, of what benefit does pondering the accuracy of scripture provide the non-Christian?

Pondering the accuracy of scripture allows one to think and speak more responsibly about matters of scripture. This is to one’s benefit in holding one’s own opinion, and this is to the benefit of oneself and others in engaging their opinions.

selah wrote:
Until last spring, I did not know anything about the dispute (allbeit friendly*:) as to accurate texts. I accepted the KJV and NKJV (finally....) when I decided to follow Jesus. From that time forward, I figured the Bible as I knew it was at the very least, a more accurate compass for life than my thoughts! Now I am just curious enough to want to listen to others' points of view. I hope to hear from you!

One may ask why we do not have a less “messy” situation with the bible. Why do we not have a single text that is easy to rely upon? Why must it be written in ancient/foreign/mysterious languages? Why must it so often be couched in the ancient/foreign/mysterious frameworks of other cultures?

The more fundamental problem is not the messiness of the bible, but the undue role that has been foisted upon it by one or more pious tradition(s). True religion is not about the bible – it is about God. But for some “bible-based” religionists, study of the bible eclipses any intimate interaction with God himself. If they want to know God, they do not spend time seeking his company; they research about him in a book. True religion should not be “bible-based” – it should be God-based.

[steve7150]

The more fundamental problem is not the messiness of the bible, but the undue role that has been foisted upon it by one or more pious tradition(s). True religion is not about the bible – it is about God. But for some “bible-based” religionists, study of the bible eclipses any intimate interaction with God himself. If they want to know God, they do not spend time seeking his company; they research about him in a book. True religion should not be “bible-based” – it should be God-based.






Reading the bible is not mutually exclusive of knowing God unless one chooses that kind of path. As a NT believer , the way i know God is through Christ for he said "if you have seen me you have seen the Father" and "I do not do my own will but the will of my Father."
I apologize because i have not had time to read this thread but my understanding is that the NT writers usually quoted the Septuagint rather then the Masoretic text and the Septuagint was a translation written by about 70 jewish scholars around 250BC in Alexandria. If you believe the NT writers wrote under inspiration then the fact they quote the Septuagint gives it credibility.

[selah]

kaufmannphillips, I'm sorry for not writing back sooner. Your post deserves a reply, but right now, my time to adequately contemplate your thoughts and then to answer is limited. I am planning to get back to this thread but obviously, am having a hard time getting back. I've got to finish getting some health procedures completed. I hope you understand and will still be here when I write you again.