Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

In your opinion, which Greek NT editions are closest to the original?

 
Total votes: 0

User avatar
kaufmannphillips
Posts: 585
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by kaufmannphillips » Sun Feb 21, 2010 5:28 pm

kaufmannphillips wrote:
And so to the textual issue: yes, when taken together, NT writers appear to show some preference for a text-type like that of the Septuagint. However, to leap from this observation to a preference for the Septuagint over the Masoretic text would be out of line, for a number of reasons:

It would be incautious and irresponsible to assume – based on supposed inspiration – that one text-type is superior to the other, when there is material evidence available for review. As it is, the material evidence should inform not only our appraisals of the text-types, but also our appraisals of the “inspiration” that appears to prefer one text-type.

steve7150 wrote:
The most significant difference that immediately came to my mind is the Matthew quote from the Septuagint, "Behold the virgin shall be with child , and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel." Isa 7.14 The LXX uses a greek word that means virgin whereas the Masoretic text uses the word for "maiden."
This may be the difference that most persons are acquainted with - and I will hypothesize that for many of these persons, it is the only difference that they are familiar with. So let me point out that judging the textual quality of an entire work based upon one single verse would be grossly inappropriate.

Beyond this – the prevailing issue in Isaiah 7 is not diction, but significance. In the context of the chapter, King Ahaz is terrified by two kings seeking to overthrow him. The sign that is spoken of in verse 14 is meant to address this situation: a child is born; and by the time that child has reached a certain level of maturity, the lands of those terrifying kings will already be desolate – indeed, things will be so bad that people will be reduced to living off dairy products from animals, because the agricultural strength of their nation will have been ruined. The upshot here: G-d has let Ahaz know that the threat will not succeed in overthrowing him, and the king will see how right G-d is when the threatening nations are destroyed in a matter of months or years.

This is the contextually appropriate understanding of the prophecy. The early church used the text for other purposes, of course. And in doing so, they were not unique amongst the gamut of Second Temple Jewish religion; amongst the Dead Sea Scroll materials, we find other literature that is willing to wrest scriptures to anachronistic concerns, despite plain context.
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by steve7150 » Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:46 pm

This is the contextually appropriate understanding of the prophecy. The early church used the text for other purposes, of course. And in doing so, they were not unique amongst the gamut of Second Temple Jewish religion; amongst the Dead Sea Scroll materials, we find other literature that is willing to wrest scriptures to anachronistic concerns, despite plain context






This is just one of hundreds of examples used by the NT writers in applying OT prophecies as being fulfilled in some way whether spiritually or by double fulfillment through the ministry of Christ. Many of these OT verses had a plain context but that does'nt mean it's the only context particularly if it's God talking through the prophet. I highly doubt that God decided to speak to the jewish nation through the written word and had nothing to say to the rest of mankind in similar manner.

User avatar
kaufmannphillips
Posts: 585
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by kaufmannphillips » Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:19 am

steve7150 wrote:
This is just one of hundreds of examples used by the NT writers in applying OT prophecies as being fulfilled in some way whether spiritually or by double fulfillment through the ministry of Christ. Many of these OT verses had a plain context but that does'nt mean it's the only context particularly if it's God talking through the prophet.
A pastor has the custom of giving a "children's talk" during the morning service. One September morning, he opens with a question: "What friend of ours lives in a tree, has a long bushy tail, and stores up acorns for winter?" None of the children volunteer an answer, so the pastor goes on: "He jumps from branch to branch, has gray fur, and chatters loudly when he's excited..." After an awkward pause, a child hesitantly raises his hand, and the pastor calls on him. "Well," the child ventures, "I know the answer is supposed to be Jesus ... but he sure sounds like a squirrel to me!"

Hermeneutics of "spiritual fulfillment" and/or "double fulfillment" are liable to gross projection on the part of an interpreter. When somebody has Jesus on the brain, they can see him in many sorts of things - be they a piece of toast or a biblical canvas.

Conservative interpretation focuses upon the plain significance of a text in its original context. To conjecture about further subtle implications, on topics significantly removed from the plain sense of the text, is dubious work.
steve7150 wrote:
I highly doubt that God decided to speak to the jewish nation through the written word and had nothing to say to the rest of mankind in similar manner.
There are prophetic passages in the Hebrew bible that address gentiles quite plainly (see Isaiah 23; Ezekiel 29). But if one is looking for G-d's written communication to "the rest of mankind," why go rifling through the Jewish mailbox? If I have an important business proposal for my Samaritan contact in Israel, I don't code it into a birthday e-mail to my aunt in The Dalles.
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by steve7150 » Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:15 am

"the rest of mankind," why go rifling through the Jewish mailbox? If I have an important business proposal for my Samaritan contact in Israel, I don't code it into a birthday e-mail to my aunt in The Dalles.





Because Jesus rifled through the so called jewish mailbox and attributed God's word to everyone.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by steve7150 » Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:21 am

Conservative interpretation focuses upon the plain significance of a text in its original context. To conjecture about further subtle implications, on topics significantly removed from the plain sense of the text, is dubious work.









Apparently Jesus must have been a liberal interpreter as well as Paul and Peter and James and Jude and the others. Obviously anyone's pre-supposition will effect how they understand the bible or anything else. None of us including you are truly objective.

User avatar
kaufmannphillips
Posts: 585
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by kaufmannphillips » Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:20 pm

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Conservative interpretation focuses upon the plain significance of a text in its original context. To conjecture about further subtle implications, on topics significantly removed from the plain sense of the text, is dubious work.

steve7150 wrote:
Apparently Jesus must have been a liberal interpreter as well as Paul and Peter and James and Jude and the others.
They might have been (though our evidence is limited and/or questionable when it comes to some of these persons).

So? Their hermeneutics should be evaluated. It is inadequate here to merely appeal to supposed authorities. Following leaders uncritically is a hallmark of cults.

I could go "old school" here: if Jesus and Paul and the others jumped off a cliff, would you do it?
steve7150 wrote:
Obviously anyone's pre-supposition will effect how they understand the bible or anything else. None of us including you are truly objective.
You don't have to preach to me about human subjectivity. But subjectivity does not obviate our making assertions and testing them against one another. If you have a substantial argument, then give it.
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================

User avatar
kaufmannphillips
Posts: 585
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by kaufmannphillips » Thu Feb 25, 2010 4:17 pm

I missed the earlier post:
kaufmannphillips wrote:
But if one is looking for G-d's written communication to "the rest of mankind," why go rifling through the Jewish mailbox? If I have an important business proposal for my Samaritan contact in Israel, I don't code it into a birthday e-mail to my aunt in The Dalles.

steve7150 wrote:
Because Jesus rifled through the so called jewish mailbox and attributed God's word to everyone.
When are you thinking of for this?
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by steve7150 » Thu Feb 25, 2010 4:50 pm

steve7150 wrote:
Obviously anyone's pre-supposition will effect how they understand the bible or anything else. None of us including you are truly objective.

You don't have to preach to me about human subjectivity. But subjectivity does not obviate our making assertions and testing them against one another. If you have a substantial argument, then give it.






I have tested the claims of the NT and they are valid to my satisfaction. I wanted to know what jews for judaism and counter-missionaries had to counter the claims of the NT. I spoke to a counter-missionary and her husband for two years on the history channel forum after they boasted they would convert me back to judaism if i spent a weekend at their house. She was very smart, a lot smarter then me but interpreting the bible is not only about academic intelligence, it is very much a matter of the heart also. She was very much committed to her belief paradigm and i am committed to the paradigm that God values everyone the same and that is reflected in how he communicates with everyone.
If you are going to counter this again by questioning why God would use "clodhoppers" to spread the gospel i already answered this and you did'nt buy it before.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by steve7150 » Thu Feb 25, 2010 4:53 pm

steve7150 wrote:
Because Jesus rifled through the so called jewish mailbox and attributed God's word to everyone.

When are you thinking of for this?




When the NT writers quote the OT hundreds of times and claim fulfillment in Jesus.

User avatar
kaufmannphillips
Posts: 585
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by kaufmannphillips » Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:52 pm

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Conservative interpretation focuses upon the plain significance of a text in its original context. To conjecture about further subtle implications, on topics significantly removed from the plain sense of the text, is dubious work.


steve7150 wrote:
Obviously anyone's pre-supposition will effect how they understand the bible or anything else. None of us including you are truly objective.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
You don't have to preach to me about human subjectivity. But subjectivity does not obviate our making assertions and testing them against one another. If you have a substantial argument, then give it.

steve7150 wrote:
I have tested the claims of the NT and they are valid to my satisfaction.
On one hand - how have you "tested the claims of the NT"?

On another hand - your statement amounts to another appeal to authority. Do you have a substantial argument against my hermeneutical stance (tinted in purple in the box above)? Or do you only have an appeal to precedent in the NT?
steve7150 wrote:
I spoke to a counter-missionary and her husband for two years on the history channel forum after they boasted they would convert me back to judaism if i spent a weekend at their house. She was very smart, a lot smarter then me but interpreting the bible is not only about academic intelligence, it is very much a matter of the heart also. She was very much committed to her belief paradigm and i am committed to the paradigm that God values everyone the same and that is reflected in how he communicates with everyone.
If you are going to counter this again by questioning why God would use "clodhoppers" to spread the gospel i already answered this and you did'nt buy it before.
If G-d values everyone the same, this scarcely has been reflected in how the gospel has been communicated with the breadth of humanity. Vast numbers of people have died without a serious encounter with the gospel.

(If I am redundant in saying this, please pardon my doing so for the sake of readers who have not perused our previous discussion.)
steve7150 wrote:
Because Jesus rifled through the so called jewish mailbox and attributed God's word to everyone.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
When are you thinking of for this?

steve7150 wrote:
When the NT writers quote the OT hundreds of times and claim fulfillment in Jesus.
Ahem – “the NT writers” are not Jesus. When are you thinking of Jesusrifl[ing] through the so called jewish mailbox and attribut[ing] God's word to everyone [sic]”?
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================

Post Reply

Return to “Essays and Writings”