PDA

View Full Version : Jeremiah: Ms or Lxx?



B&H
08-11-2014, 07:42 PM
As hopefully most of you know, textual traditions for Jeremiah between Masoretic Text and Septuagint are substantially different.

How do you know which one of them represents the original wording penned by Jeremiah?

If liberals cannot generalize from the discrepancies of Lxx-Jeremiah and MS-Jeremiah that scribes likely corrupted the intent of the original bible authors, does fairness require that conservatives then cannot generalize from the similarities between MS-Isaiah and Dss-Isaiah that scribes copied the OT text with exacting accuracy?

NormATive
08-11-2014, 10:06 PM
As hopefully most of you know, textual traditions for Jeremiah between Masoretic Text and Septuagint are substantially different.

How do you know which one of them represents the original wording penned by Jeremiah?

If liberals cannot generalize from the discrepancies of Lxx-Jeremiah and MS-Jeremiah that scribes likely corrupted the intent of the original bible authors, does fairness require that conservatives then cannot generalize from the similarities between MS-Isaiah and Dss-Isaiah that scribes copied the OT text with exacting accuracy?

Interesting question, B&H.

As a non-theist, I think that the discrepancies are completely natural, and what one would expect from ancient manuscripts that have been floating around for centuries. The temptation to tinker with the "Words of God" is simply too irresistible from a human perspective.

It will be interesting to see how theists of all stripes deal with this conundrum. Many, of course, will doubt such a discrepancy exists. Or, even better - the discrepancies are "part of God's plan."

NORM

tabibito
08-12-2014, 12:26 AM
The Masoretic Text dates to 895 AD. Seems it isn't as reliable as the inerrancy brigade likes to pretend.


But then ... the inerrancy argument is based on a rather questionable (to understate the case) comprehension of a couple of New Testament texts anyway.

B&H
08-12-2014, 12:05 PM
Interesting question, B&H.

As a non-theist, I think that the discrepancies are completely natural, and what one would expect from ancient manuscripts that have been floating around for centuries. The temptation to tinker with the "Words of God" is simply too irresistible from a human perspective.

It will be interesting to see how theists of all stripes deal with this conundrum. Many, of course, will doubt such a discrepancy exists. Or, even better - the discrepancies are "part of God's plan."

NORM

Yeah, sort of like the old creationist canard that the devil placed transitional fossils in the ground for scientists to find, in the effort to prove error in Genesis. Or the Mormon canard that God is preventing south American archaeologists from finding corroboration of Book of Mormon people, since such proof would call for using less faith...!

B&H
08-12-2014, 12:13 PM
The Masoretic Text dates to 895 AD. Seems it isn't as reliable as the inerrancy brigade likes to pretend.

But then ... the inerrancy argument is based on a rather questionable (to understate the case) comprehension of a couple of New Testament texts anyway.

Agreed. Paul attributed inerrancy or inspiration to copies and not just orignals (2nd Timothy 3:16, v. 15 says Timothy knew the holy scriptures since childhood, but everybody agrees he did not know the originals, hence what Paul was attributing inspiration to were the first-century copies of scripture). Since most inerrantists agree that copies do not qualify for inerrancy, they are agreeing that Paul erred.

Maybe I missed it, but how do I turn on html here so I can use italics, bolding, etc?

Truthseeker
08-12-2014, 12:34 PM
After you click on "Reply" or "Reply With Quote" there is a button "Go Advanced," which when clicked on, turns on the advanced editor. You actually don't need to code HTML, the editor has many commands you can click on.

Truthseeker
08-12-2014, 12:41 PM
I wonder if B&H and tabibito have forgotten that Paul studied under Gamaliel.

B&H
08-12-2014, 01:34 PM
I wonder if B&H and tabibito have forgotten that Paul studied under Gamaliel.

I do not trust as true every single thing the NT says about Paul. But if you wish to argue that Paul's studying under Gamaliel refutes some position I take, please specify and explain why.

B&H
08-12-2014, 01:36 PM
After you click on "Reply" or "Reply With Quote" there is a button "Go Advanced," which when clicked on, turns on the advanced editor. You actually don't need to code HTML, the editor has many commands you can click on.

thanks, I was looking around for that option but didn't see it. On other forums, my failure to see it would be used to justify a generalization that I have no hope of ever understanding anything!

shunyadragon
08-12-2014, 04:10 PM
As hopefully most of you know, textual traditions for Jeremiah between Masoretic Text and Septuagint are substantially different.

How do you know which one of them represents the original wording penned by Jeremiah?

If liberals cannot generalize from the discrepancies of Lxx-Jeremiah and MS-Jeremiah that scribes likely corrupted the intent of the original bible authors, does fairness require that conservatives then cannot generalize from the similarities between MS-Isaiah and Dss-Isaiah that scribes copied the OT text with exacting accuracy?

Its a good example of how the text of the books of the Bible evolved, and most often not written by one person at one time..

Truthseeker
08-12-2014, 04:18 PM
I do not trust as true every single thing the NT says about Paul. But if you wish to argue that Paul's studying under Gamaliel refutes some position I take, please specify and explain why.Refute a position that is speculative? Nah. Just pointing out something that neither you nor tabibito may have taken into due consideration. Possibly Paul knew the Scriptures (i.e., the OT) far better than y'all could ever hope to know.

Truthseeker
08-12-2014, 04:31 PM
As hopefully most of you know, textual traditions for Jeremiah between Masoretic Text and Septuagint are substantially different.

How do you know which one of them represents the original wording penned by Jeremiah?

If liberals cannot generalize from the discrepancies of Lxx-Jeremiah and MS-Jeremiah that scribes likely corrupted the intent of the original bible authors, does fairness require that conservatives then cannot generalize from the similarities between MS-Isaiah and Dss-Isaiah that scribes copied the OT text with exacting accuracy?According to James Patrick Holding http://www.tectonics.org, variations between textual traditions are, well, trivial, for the great part IIRC. Different spellings, for example, and copyist errors.

Baruch ben Neriah served as scribe for Jeremiah. Possibly J didn't "pen" any part of the book of Jeremiah (see especially Jer 36:14).

B&H
08-12-2014, 06:58 PM
According to James Patrick Holding http://www.tectonics.org, variations between textual traditions are, well, trivial, for the great part IIRC. Different spellings, for example, and copyist errors.

Baruch ben Neriah served as scribe for Jeremiah. Possibly J didn't "pen" any part of the book of Jeremiah (see especially Jer 36:14).

But the original question remains unresolved: Since the Ms and Lxx version of Jeremiah substantially differ, how do you determine which version of Jeremiah represents the original wording?

And if you could argue that one or the other represented the original wording, is your argument so conclusive that no rational room is left for an alternative view?

One Bad Pig
08-12-2014, 08:54 PM
But the original question remains unresolved: Since the Ms and Lxx version of Jeremiah substantially differ, how do you determine which version of Jeremiah represents the original wording?
The scholarly consensus seems to be that the LXX version is original, and the MT version has been edited for clarity. The additional material in the MT seems to be mostly repetition. Regardless, what theological difference is there between the two?


And if you could argue that one or the other represented the original wording, is your argument so conclusive that no rational room is left for an alternative view?
We have nowhere near enough evidence to be inarguably conclusive. History tends not to work like that. Even science rarely works like that.

Truthseeker
08-12-2014, 09:22 PM
The scholarly consensus seems to be that the LXX version is original, and the MT version has been edited for clarity. The additional material in the MT seems to be mostly repetition. Regardless, what theological difference is there between the two?

We have nowhere near enough evidence to be inarguably conclusive. History tends not to work like that. Even science rarely works like that.Amen

tabibito
08-13-2014, 03:14 AM
Agreed. Paul attributed inerrancy or inspiration to copies and not just orignals (2nd Timothy 3:16, v. 15 says Timothy knew the holy scriptures since childhood, but everybody agrees he did not know the originals, hence what Paul was attributing inspiration to were the first-century copies of scripture). Since most inerrantists agree that copies do not qualify for inerrancy, they are agreeing that Paul erred.

Maybe I missed it, but how do I turn on html here so I can use italics, bolding, etc?

Paul didn't attribute all of the Holy Writ to inspiration of the Holy Spirit in that passage:

https://scontent-b-hkg.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10403012_796040603748859_4876092976671892741_n.jpg (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Wayrunner-Fellowship/425007244185532)

What he did say was: From childhood Timothy had been well acquainted with a particular subset of every inspired scripture - the ones that were useful for particular purposes.

rogue06
08-13-2014, 03:28 AM
Maybe I missed it, but how do I turn on html here so I can use italics, bolding, etc?
When you're posting look at the little boxes along the top toward the left with the capital B (bolding), I (italics) and underlined U (you guessed it :smile:).

Welcome to Tweb.

And for the record... what OBP said.

tabibito
08-13-2014, 03:29 AM
According to James Patrick Holding http://www.tectonics.org, variations between textual traditions are, well, trivial, for the great part IIRC. Different spellings, for example, and copyist errors.

Baruch ben Neriah served as scribe for Jeremiah. Possibly J didn't "pen" any part of the book of Jeremiah (see especially Jer 36:14).

For the most part, yes. The text of Jeremiah seems to be subject to more serious discrepancies than most. But why would Paul, or any other New Testament author, be citing the Masoretic texts? There is no evidence that those versions even existed at the time of Christ.

One Bad Pig
08-13-2014, 07:06 AM
For the most part, yes. The text of Jeremiah seems to be subject to more serious discrepancies than most. But why would Paul, or any other New Testament author, be citing the Masoretic texts? There is no evidence that those versions even existed at the time of Christ.
Much of the scriptural material found at Qumran/Masada is proto-MT, and that is from at or before the time of Christ.

tabibito
08-13-2014, 07:39 AM
Much of the scriptural material found at Qumran/Masada is proto-MT, and that is from at or before the time of Christ.

Which parts don't include vowel signs?

One Bad Pig
08-13-2014, 08:02 AM
Which parts don't include vowel signs?
How material are the vowel signs? They make the text easier to read, but AFAIR there's not a whole lot of room for differences in meaning without them, and they are certainly not material to the discussion at hand regarding Jeremiah.

tabibito
08-13-2014, 08:35 AM
The vowel signs are significant because they give the earliest possible dates for manuscripts as around 500 AD.
Do the proto Masoretic texts show any evidence of redaction? Matthew 2:23 for example isn't in the MT texts (nor the LXX), but it was in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 11:1 available to Jerome.

One Bad Pig
08-13-2014, 09:43 AM
The vowel signs are significant because they give the earliest possible dates for manuscripts as around 500 AD.
Do the proto Masoretic texts show any evidence of redaction? Matthew 2:23 for example isn't in the MT texts (nor the LXX), but it was in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 11:1 available to Jerome.
I gather that there were a couple of distinct families of Hebrew MSS around the time of Christ (proto-LXX, proto-MT, and at least one other); this is reflected in OT quotes in the NT, where some quotes exactly match what is found in the MT, some quotes exactly match the LXX, and some differ somewhat from both. The discovery of Hebrew witnesses to the LXX tradition (and IIRC other non proto-MT material) at Qumran shows that the differences are most likely in the underlying Hebrew text, not in translation. The MT was quite carefully copied, but it appears that the rigorous standards of the Masoretes do not appear to have always been in effect. Some of the material may not have initially been regarded as scripture (the Samaritans only accepted the Torah, and IIRC the Sadducees did the same); there appears to not have been a formal canon until after the time of Christ.

Truthseeker
08-13-2014, 04:45 PM
In any case, Paul probably memorized the Scriptures. Do you think he would not have protested against any significant deviation from them in the written texts extant in Jesus' time?

robrecht
08-13-2014, 06:03 PM
There is at least one Hebrew manuscript of Jeremiah at Qumran that reflects the Hebrew Vorlage (underlying text) of the LXX version of Jeremiah and other manuscripts that reflect the consonental text of the Masoretes. So both text traditions certainly predate Christianity. One Bad Pig, as usual, is right about the fact that most of the biblical manuscripts at Qumran correspond to the consonental text of the Masoretes, but there are a significant number of Hebrew manuscripts that reflect the LXX tradition, and others that reflect other text traditions. It is sometimes possible to see how the LXX translators used the same consonental text as the Masoretes but vocalized or interpreted it differently and other times when the LXX simply must be based on a different Hebrew Vorlage. It is sometimes thought that the various texts compiled in the later parts of the book of Jeremiah were organized differently in two different places, perhaps Babylon and Alexandria, reflecting the fact that Jeremiah's ministry was still on-going during the time of the Babylonian exile. The MT may have a more consistent chronological schema, while the LXX organizational schema might have intended a schema based on other prophetic literature. In my third year of Hebrew, we spent months on the book of Jeremiah, and it was a mind-blowing experience reading his thoughts in his own words.