Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

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

 
Total votes: 0

User avatar
selah
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:59 pm

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by selah » Sun Jan 31, 2010 2:08 am

steve7150 wrote:
kaufmannphillips wrote: 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.

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.
Steve7150, I was thinking that too, about the implications inspiration should make. I lean toward preferring the Septuagint, however, I've got a lot to learn. I hope to be back soon...and see you soon. Thanks. :)
Jesus said, "I in them and you in Me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that you have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me." John 17:23

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

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by kaufmannphillips » Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:56 pm

selah wrote: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. :)
I've got outstanding lines of discussion, too. I have worked on a reply to your post in the Witness forum, but I have not finished it. And I haven't responded to steve7150 in this thread yet. But it can be better to have a well-thought-out discussion than a prompt one :) .

Have a good weekend,
Emmet
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================

User avatar
selah
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:59 pm

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by selah » Sat Feb 06, 2010 5:45 pm

Hi kaufmannphillips, I'm finally coming back to share with you on this thread. Thanks for your preoccupied patience while continuing in your "outstanding lines of discussion." ;) This topic takes a different part of my brain than what I've had available lately. I had some healthcare procedures done so am feeling up to considering this study now. Also, I'm a visual, kinesthetic learner so I decided to access a printer and get hard copies of your replies for easy reading and highlighting. I located a Revised Standard Version "Common Bible" with the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books and also "The New English Bible" published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press. Can you offer a critical perspective on either or both of these books? I am in process of reading the Preface and Forward to each book, but would love your general (or detailed) of comments. Thanks...

I have to admit (if I am to understand this topic) that this is confusing to me. Most of what you said below is confusing to me. I think first steps to get me on the right track is simple definitions. Too many terms, phrases and labels confuse me. I need to learn a sequential x=y vocabulary.

Can we start all over? May I paraphrase what I think I have learned so far? (only about the OT)

The Babylonian text (I know you don't prefer referring to the texts by their originating cultures, but I forgot their synonymous names.) was used to translate the OT by the Mesorites in the 14th Century. Later, the Egyptian translation was discovered and it was eventually noted that NT quotes were more accurately taken word-for-word from the Egyptian text. So the debate arises as to which OT text is the most accurate. (At least this is my oversimplified understanding of Paidion's posts on this thread.)
kaufmannphillips wrote: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:

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

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

:arrow: 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.
First :arrow: "Families" verses "monolithic text"--I "get" the general idea here. Perhaps, I could understand it better if I outline the subsets under the "Families" headings.

Second :arrow: I think the fact that "NT writers do not use a Septuagintal form in every instance" is a case in point to say that these translations are inherently less accurate. Again, if I learned correctly from Paidion, I think so. (Where, on this thread, might you agree with Paidion's posted position?)

Third :arrow: When I read a biblical translation, I would prefer word-for-word so I can choose, based on responsible inquiry, which meaning I believe the author intended. So when you say, "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." I'm not sure I appreciate this as "a normal aspect of translation."

I probably just don't understand...you...or Paidion. Sorry to become overwhelmed with this topic. I really want to understand it though...so I'll keep trying. Thank you.
selah*
Last edited by selah on Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Jesus said, "I in them and you in Me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that you have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me." John 17:23

User avatar
selah
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:59 pm

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by selah » Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:15 pm

VOCABULARY:(for the beginner)

I will fill this in as I learn the definitions. Feel free to add to it if you will. I'll "Edit in" your definitions and then, when all is complete, I'll delete this statement.

tradition--the act of a copiest using the prior copiest's terms to copy a translated form of the written word

Tertullian-- An early church father who lived in the 2nd century. He translated and made quotations from the Septuagint or the Greek New Testament, but there may not have been a Latin Bible before 210-240 AD so it is suggested that Tertullian may have just translated the Greek "as he went along." Most scholars disagree, stating that there probably was an older version.

Majority text-form(= Byzantine text)--similar to the Textus Receptus but "corrects readings which have little or no support in the Greek manuscript tradition." (quote from NKJV Preface) Byzantine :arrow: Textus Receptus :arrow: KJV.

Textus Receptus--the KJV Bible came out of this tradition

Late Textual Tradition--the Babylonian text which the Mesorites translated in the 1400's and was later used to translate into the Vulgate which was used to translate the KJV


Egyptian text--also known as the Alexandrian text. "They are found in the Critical Text published in the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Societies' third edition (U), hense the anacronym, "NU-Test." (quoted from NKJV Preface.)

Greek New Testament--the NT written in Greek, but originating in Aramaic

Early Manuscripts--Egyptian texts which were found after the Babylonian text was translated in 1300's.


"Western" texts--the Western type of text has close affinity with the Syriac witnesses

early translations (Latin, Syriac, Coptic)

early Fathers (Justin, Irenaeus, Tatian, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, etc.)

Clement (ca. 190-215)

Origen (ca.215-245)


writers associated with the church of Antioch: Asterius the Sophist, the Cappadocians, Chrysostom, Theodoet od Cyrus

Douay-Rheims--one of the Roman Catholic bibles, including the New American Bible; the Jerusalem Bible; the New Jerusalem Bible; and the Christian Community Bible.

Papyrus 45 from the early 3rd century--
Papyrus 46 from the middle of the second century--
P75

Rotherham--

Codex Vaticanus

Codex Sinaiticus

Codices E F G H M

Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic

Alexandria

Luther--a monk living in the middle ages who rejected Catholicism and made known the belief that one's soul is saved by faith, not by penitence or works.

Calvin--

Apocrypha--a collection of OT books which have been rejected as canon of scripture, but Catholics include them into their bible.

Vulgate--A Mesoretic translation that Luther rejected ?

RESOURCES:
Gordon Fee, from his book Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism.
Last edited by selah on Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:14 am, edited 3 times in total.
Jesus said, "I in them and you in Me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that you have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me." John 17:23

User avatar
selah
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:59 pm

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by selah » Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:06 pm

post deleted by selah

go to http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html
Last edited by selah on Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Jesus said, "I in them and you in Me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that you have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me." John 17:23

User avatar
selah
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:59 pm

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by selah » Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:45 pm

Pierac wrote: Yes, I tend to agree.

With the discovery of P75 and the release of the text in the early 1960’s we now can see that it was not a recension but a careful copy, illustrated by it’s textual relationship, with the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. The number of differences between P75 and Codex Vaticanus indicates that Vaticanus is not a copy of P75 but comes from a common Ancestor.

The discovery of P75 shows that Hort was correct about the Codex Vaticanus in that it was not only a ancient text but a very pure line with regard to the original text.
Pierac, I realize this is an old thread now, but if you are still interested, would you please help me understand a few items? Thanks if you (or someone can).

What is P75 and when was it discovered? Does it have anything to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls? Also, what are the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus?
Pierac wrote:According to Gordon Fee, from his book Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism.

From AD 150-250 we have firm data from all over the world that a variety of text forms were in use, but in all these materials there is not a single illustration of the later Majority (= Byzantine or Group A) text as a text form. The evidence from Egypt is indeed basically singular. The earliest Greek MSS (P66, P75, P46,P72, ca. 175-250), the citations of Clement (ca. 190-215) and Origen (ca.215-245), and the earliest translations (Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic) all bear witness to a single text type.

One might argue, of course that all the early translations (Latin, Syriac, Coptic) and early Fathers (Justin, Irenaeus, Tatian, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, etc.) had the misfortune to use only the "rejected offshoot" MSS. But if so, who represents the "broad stream" that "wore out" the copies more like the autographs? The obvious answer is that the Byzantine text-form simply did not exist in the second and third centuries, although many of the variants that were to be found in it had already come into existence.

The majority text as a full-fledged form of text, distinguishable from the Egyptian and "Western," does not appear in history until about AD 350, NT citations that are closer to the TR than to the Egyptian and "Western" texts first appear in a group of writers associated with the church of Antioch: Asterius the Sophist, the Cappadocians, Chrysostom, Theodoet od Cyrus. But even so, these Fathers had a NT only about 90% along the way to the full Byzantine texts of the later Middle Ages. The earliest Greek MS to reflect this is from Alexandria (codex W, ca.400-Luke 8:14-14:53 only) and is only about 85% Byzantine, while the earliest full witness to it are uncials in the eighth and ninth centuries (Codices E F G H M )-and even these reflect a slightly earlier stage of the text finally found in the TR. The fact is that even this text, as generally homogeneous as it is from 400 to 1500, has clearly involved from an earlier form, were the kinds of reading particular to it become more thoroughgoing at a later stage.

These are historical data. They are "objectively verifiable" and incontrovertible. The idea that the Majority text of the Middle Ages reflected the "broad stream" of the transmission of the text going back to the autographs is simply a myth.


Paul
Paul, obviously you are a learned brother. Would you be so kind as to write this information in a more simple, introductory level?

One point it looks like you are making is that the Majority text (= Byzantine or Group A) was not used from AD 150-250. Would this mean that the early manuscripts, or Egyptian texts were used during those years? What do you mean by the "evidence from Egypt" being "singular," or having a "single text type?"

Which manuscript is historically older? the Majority text, or the Alexandrian text? I think the newer one was found first and translated first, and then at a later date, the older one was found. However, the newer one had already established a "tradition" of copiest's practice, so it just continued to be used throughout antiquity. Is that right? Thank you.

selah*
Jesus said, "I in them and you in Me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that you have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me." John 17:23

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

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by kaufmannphillips » Fri Feb 19, 2010 2:52 pm

steve7150 wrote:
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.
The historical point first: we do have ancient comments about the birth of the Septuagint, but they appear to be legend (if you are interested, this article discusses how the legend is more and more elaborate in different sources). Of course, with legends there may be some kernel of truth beneath swaths of romantic creativity. Often, some layers of innovation can be recognized and stripped away; but at some point, it can be hard to identify what is kernel and what is romance.

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:

:arrow: 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.

:arrow: Only a very minute portion of the Septuagint is quoted (or clearly paralleled) in the NT. The usage of a small percentage of a work does not necessarily validate the work as a whole. We can appreciate this more on a couple of scores: on one hand, different books in the Septuagint (apparently) exhibit different characters in their translation, so the Septuagint itself may not be consistent in its quality; on another hand, the NT itself does not universally prefer the Septuagintal text-type over the Masoretic - on occasion, a Masoretic sort of text is given preference.

:arrow: Even if the Septuagint were consistently translated from Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts that were superior to the Masoretic text, it still remains at best a translation. When the Septuagint employs its Greek word choice, we must admit in many cases that we do not know what Hebrew or Aramaic word was originally used in the source text. Accordingly, we do not know whether the word choice of the Septuagint is precisely accurate in carrying across the meaning of the source text. Some ideas cannot be transferred efficiently from one language to another, and some can scarcely be carried across at all.

Beyond this – without the source text to compare to, we must admit in many cases that we do not know whether the Greek translation is even a direct representation (whether precise or imprecise) of what was in its Hebrew or Aramaic source text. Translators may feature paraphrase, bowdlerization, and/or interpretive gloss in their endeavors.

As such - when the Septuagintal text-type differs from the Masoretic text-type, in some cases this may not be a function of its Hebrew and Aramaic source texts. The difference may simply be a matter of translational distortion.

:arrow: And to open a final can of worms…

In some cases, the Septuagint may accurately reflect a Hebrew and/or Aramaic source text that predates the Masoretic text. An example of this would be the Septuagintal version of Jeremiah, which appears to be based on an earlier edition of the book than the one found in the Masoretic text.

Now, in these cases, one might assume the earlier text-type to be superior, as “closer” to the “original” manuscript. But there is a further problem: it is not a given that the original/earliest form of a book is superior in quality and/or inspiration.

Scenario A: Prophet X prepares an edition of his prophecies. Twenty years later, he prepares an expanded and revised version. Which of these works is inspired? Or superior? And which is to be preferred, after copies of both versions have been in circulation for a few centuries?

Then again – some books fall into a category that Robert Kraft terms “evolved literature.” This sort of literature develops over time, and can pass through numerous editions at the hands of numerous writers and/or editors.

Scenario B: Prophet Z conducts a thirty-year ministry. Shortly after his passing, his close companions prepare an edition of some of his prophecies. During the century or so after his death, various admirers augment this edition with other prophecies and anecdotes about the prophet. After about a hundred years, an enterprising scribe gathers together several of these augmented versions and collates them into a single work. And some twenty years later, another scribe goes over the collated work and refines it – mostly in terms of style, but occasionally attempting to correct or clarify problem areas.

Which of these stages is inspired? Or superior? And which is to be preferred, when copies of different stages are found (having been in independent circulation)?

Scenario C: Writer H works for a wealthy and powerful patron in the province of Yehud. He consults numerous sources and produces a work about a Jewish hero of generations past. The writer’s patron likes it so much that he shares copies of the work with other persons, and the work becomes quite popular. But some other persons feel the work is lacking or at least could be supplemented. They graft large-scale sections onto the work, and add lines of pious detail here and there.

Once again - which of these versions is inspired? Or superior? And which is to be preferred, after copies of both versions have been in circulation for a few centuries?

In the Septuagint, Jeremiah might be an example of something like Scenario A or Scenario B. On the other hand, Esther and Daniel might be examples of Scenario C.

Anyway – I will link here another thread on our subject, and reiterate my comment from that thread:

When it comes to OT studies, a careful textual scholar will make use of both the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text, weighing their respective merits on a case-by-case basis, along with other evidences from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Targums, etc. Though one may argue over which text-type is more reliable - and the Greek NT itself parallels sometimes one, and othertimes the other - the Septuagint is in no way a substitute for a Hebrew text. At best, it can serve as a clue to what an underlying Hebrew text might have been.
========================
"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 » Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:39 pm

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






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."

User avatar
Suzana
Posts: 503
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 3:09 am
Location: Australia

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by Suzana » Sat Feb 20, 2010 5:47 pm

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."
I was under the impression that (in English at least) the word "maiden" is a synonym, and implies virginity anyway; perhaps that's also the case in Hebrew with the Masoretic text?
Suzana
_________________________
If a man cannot be a Christian in the place he is, he cannot be a Christian anywhere. - Henry Ward Beecher

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

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by steve7150 » Sun Feb 21, 2010 1:19 pm

I was under the impression that (in English at least) the word "maiden" is a synonym, and implies virginity anyway; perhaps that's also the case in Hebrew with the Masoretic text?







Yes "maiden" in that culture meant virgin for all practical purposes but the LXX specifically uses the word for virgin, to the best of my knowledge.

Post Reply

Return to “Essays and Writings”