Just for fun, Which Greek text do the degreeinfo theologians prefer? 1) Textus Receptus (Erasmus/Stephanus/KJV, etc.) 2) Critical Text (Aland/Metzger/NIV/NASB, etc.) 3) Majority/Byzantine Text (Hodges/Farstad/Robinson, etc.) 4) Other
And I almost forgot... Please feel free to include your comments on why you hold the opinion you do, if you would like. By way of very brief explanation... For those who are not familiar with the topic, there are over 5000 handwritten Greek manuscripts, which have many minor differences. The majority of the differences are spelling, word order, etc., but some passages are in question. The textual critics try to determine which manuscript families (all copies) are descended from the original autographs, and which contain errors. If this is offensively esoteric, feel free to continue on to another thread.
I prefer the Rylands Fragment of John 18:31-38 (P52). It appears to be the closest in age to an original autograph. Tony Piña (Not a theologian, but I find this stuff to be fun).
I once heard Pastor Chuck Smith discuss why he believed the Textus Receptus was the most reliable and why older was not necessarily more reliable. He made some interesting arguments and I always meant to get the tape of his talk. Sorry I can not elaborate but you can always go to the Cavalry Chapel site. At one point this issue was why Smith was okay with the NKJV of the bible but then found some things he did not like that he felt were similar to other translations and went back to KJV. Although this is not about translations, I have found the NKJV to read very closely to the NASB (which many pastors prefer). I have noticed an increased use of the NKJV among conservative Christians and Pastors. North
A few relevant articles: Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text
Professor's Soapbox Ed K. : "A few relevant articles: Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text" DG: Over the last month or so, I have been attempting to digest Professor Wallace's articles. He is both interesting and very prolific. His most recent article about his trip to Europe and the manuscripts he was able to view there was fascinating. Nice pictures, too.
NKJV sidebar North: "Although this is not about translations, I have found the NKJV to read very closely to the NASB (which many pastors prefer). I have noticed an increased use of the NKJV among conservative Christians and Pastors. " DG: 'Tis true. My pastor (Southern Baptist) uses it. My oldest daughter's school (Regular Baptist) uses it. And most significantly (ha ha), it is what the DG family uses for readings at dinnertime. I like the way the NKJV reads, although when a study issue arises, I reach for my Greek interlinear. I also wind up using the King James Version, as I lead a regular Bible Study at a retirement home, where the vast majority of the residents are most familiar with the KJV.
hey... Hey! Why aren't we talking about which is better among the LXX, The Sam. Pentateuch, BHS (B19), the Vulgate, ETC. ETC. ETC?????? Chris
I'm looking forward to the release of the new critical edition based on Aleppo Codex. For those unfamiliar with Aleppo Codex, it contains the complete Hebrew Old Testament and is dated ca. AD 950. It is older than the Leningrad Codex (ca. AD 1008), which is the edition underlying both BHK(3) and BHS. The release of the new critical edition (which is being completed by scholars at Hebrew University in Jerusalem) may be far off since only Isaiah has been published to date. Chris, do you know more about the timing of subsequent publications? My understanding is that work is currently focused on Jeremiah and the entire Hebrew scriptures may be decades from completion.
EdK~~ as far as I know, you are correct about the Aleppo codex. I can't wait either. If I find out anything more anytime soon, I'll be sure and post. I honestly hope politics doesn't cause any delay for this crucial work. Personally, I wish they would finish it before I begin working on a PhD. I would very much like to study first and second Samuel, but the textual work that goes with it may move my topic in another direction. Shalom in Christ, Chris
Chris: "Why aren't we talking about which is better among the LXX, The Sam. Pentateuch, BHS (B19), the Vulgate, ETC. ETC. ETC??????" OK, lets. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this. I am particularly interested in your perspective (as a recent Old Testament MA grad) on the text-critical value of the Septuagint, and the latest work in this area. For those browsing the Off-Topic forum but not familiar with this topic, the Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament frequently quoted by Jesus and the apostles.
Didn't mean to exclude the rest of you. Ed K., Bill G., PastorBill, and any others, feel free to respond as well. As a distance learnng student, I don't always have the opportunity to chew the fat with friends on educational topics like these. I have enjoyed the discussion on degreeinfo.com, as well as the many private e-mails with folks here. Most of my friends and co-workers locally are certainly intelligent, but pursuing other subject areas such as management, public administration, etc.
Well, DG1, I'm sorry I haven't replied recently. I didn't expect my plea to catch on. Okay. First of all, I don't think it's really proper to call the LXX a "Septuagint" because really what we have is a varied set of different translated versions of different OT books. It is because of the analogy with the MT that we bind the texts together into a corpus and, following, label it "The septuagint." I think this creates some subtle problems. But I'm not really sure what issues you are referring to. Do you want to talk about a particular book in the LXX? Or, it's value for the NT writers? What are you looking for? If you want to know about the "value" of "The Septuagint" in general I would say that it is extremely valuable. My general read is, there are numerous reasons why one would want to consult it. For instance, if you were studying the narratives in 1/2nd Samuel, you would use the LXX version as much as possible, although it varies (considerably, if I remember) frequently. That would be because the MT is generally more difficult to follow in that area. The LXX is a world in itself. One can do entire dissertations on the translational strategy of one of the books. If you can read Greek, I would suggest you start in the Psalms. Trust me. Chris
Chris, Thanks for your comments. Aside from reading the Septuagint to clarify areas where the Masoretic text is harder to follow, are there any specific OT books where any reputable scholars believe that the LXX translation from Hebrew to Greek c. 250 BC is a more accurate representation of the original Hebrew text that the Masoretic text we have today, or the Dead Sea Scrolls? Also, what do you (or the rest of the discussion) think is the best resource on the Septuagint? I ask because my local library is limited, and I will have to purchase books for my own library. For example, I know Moises Silva is a very respected scholar, but I would prefer your input before buying his work purely on name recognition. Dave
The Jobes and Silva book entitled Invitation to the Septuagint is well worth the investment. It's probably the best introduction to the LXX available. Martin Hengel, the world renowned conservative Tuebingen scholar, has also recently written an introductory book entitled The Septuagint and Christian Scripture. Emanuel Tov, probably considered the world's premier Old Testament textual critic, wrote a book entitled The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research for those interested in a fuller discussion of the text-critical value of the LXX.
Great discussion guys, I gotta go. I would read Tov first, Silva second, and then the rest. Another text you might want to peruse to check out the variety of issues that converge on the canonization issue is Beckwith's The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church . I still prefer it, even though some say it is "old fashioned." On the MT vs. the LXX debate: Let me just say that it IS an issue to consider that, in places, it is very possible the LXX is closer. For sure, the MT could be further removed because the scribes who produced it were part of a community of readers that, largely, rejected "Christian" readings for quite some time. The LXX, I think you will find, has a more messianic spin. Especially in the Psalms. If you read them, they will blow you away. Don't get me wrong, the Masoretes were very careful about not including an ideology. But, the larger community wasn't as careful and over time that makes a difference on the vowel points, I think. If the Jews wanted to take the messiah out of the OT they could have done a much better job on Isaiah. Chris
