the Masoretic Text..nearly 2,000 years old

[JM]

Could this mean Protestant Bibles have been using the correct text type all of these years? Maybe modern textual criticism is wrong? We shouldn’t jump to conclusions...yet.

Quote:

The lump of carbonized parchment could not be opened or read. Its curators did nothing but conserve it, hoping that new technology might one day emerge to make the scroll legible.

Just such a technology has now been perfected by computer scientists at theUniversity of Kentucky. Working with biblical scholars in Jerusalem, they have used a computer to unfurl a digital image of the scroll.

It turns out to hold a fragment identical to the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible and, at nearly 2,000 years old, is the earliest instance of the text. (end quote)

Read the rest here: Source

 

[farout]

Could this mean Protestant Bibles have been using the correct text type all of these years? Maybe modern textual criticism is wrong? We shouldn’t jump to conclusions...yet.

Quote:

The lump of carbonized parchment could not be opened or read. Its curators did nothing but conserve it, hoping that new technology might one day emerge to make the scroll legible.

Just such a technology has now been perfected by computer scientists at theUniversity of Kentucky. Working with biblical scholars in Jerusalem, they have used a computer to unfurl a digital image of the scroll.

It turns out to hold a fragment identical to the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible and, at nearly 2,000 years old, is the earliest instance of the text. (end quote)

Read the rest here: Source

How amazing they were able to read each leaf one slice at a time. This opens up even more parts of parchments to be read. I saw this last week, but thank you for posting it.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Could this mean Protestant Bibles have been using the correct text type all of these years? Maybe modern textual criticism is wrong?

I still don't know where I stand on the textual criticism issue. However, it must be noted that even modern OT translations are based upon the MT (Masoretic Text, not Majority Text). Where textual variants within the MT are concerned, older translations and commentaries such as the LXX, Syriac, Vulgate, and Targums are consulted. Even the Masoretes knew (and notated such in their text) that their text in some instances did not have a rock solid textual base. However, with these discoveries, it is absolutely amazing how stable the text of the OT is.

 

[JM]

I still don't know where I stand on the textual criticism issue. However, it must be noted that even modern OT translations are based upon the MT (Masoretic Text, not Majority Text). Where textual variants within the MT are concerned, older translations and commentaries such as the LXX, Syriac, Vulgate, and Targums are consulted. Even the Masoretes knew (and notated such in their text) that their text in some instances did not have a rock solid textual base. However, with these discoveries, it is absolutely amazing how stable the text of the OT is.

The Majority Text is NT, the Masoretic Text is OT.

I hold to what has been called the "confesisonally Reformed" view.

"the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion,"

 

[TaylorSexton]

The Majority Text is NT, the Masoretic Text is OT.

I know. That's why I clarified in my post.

I hold to what has been called the "confesisonally Reformed" view.

"the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion,"

Yep. This is still an area of learning for me. I have gone back and forth between the two positions, and now I am not sure what I think. Haha.

 

[JimmyH]

The 'Great' Isaiah Scroll (complete) found at Qumran in 1947, was found to be virtually identical to the Masoretic text.
"This copy of Isaiah contains many minor differences from the later Masoretic text (the text which forms the basis of the modern Hebrew Bible). Most of the differences are simply grammatical (for example, spelling certain words with an extra letter that does not alter the pronunciation)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_scroll

 

[Job8]

Could this mean Protestant Bibles have been using the correct text type all of these years? Maybe modern textual criticism is wrong? We shouldn’t jump to conclusions...yet.

The Masoretic Text goes back all the way to Moses, so Christians have been using a text which is over 3,500 old. If you know anything about how carefully and meticulously the Hebrew scribes (which included the Masoretes) copied the Bible text, we can rest assured that we are reading a faithful translation of a faithfully transmitted text in the Authorized Version. The Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls confirms this.

 

[JM]

 

[Tree of Life]

Could this mean Protestant Bibles have been using the correct text type all of these years? Maybe modern textual criticism is wrong? We shouldn’t jump to conclusions...yet.

Quote:

The lump of carbonized parchment could not be opened or read. Its curators did nothing but conserve it, hoping that new technology might one day emerge to make the scroll legible.

Just such a technology has now been perfected by computer scientists at theUniversity of Kentucky. Working with biblical scholars in Jerusalem, they have used a computer to unfurl a digital image of the scroll.

It turns out to hold a fragment identical to the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible and, at nearly 2,000 years old, is the earliest instance of the text. (end quote)

Read the rest here: Source

Huh? I thought the Masoretes were a medieval guild?

 

[Tree of Life]

Ok so I'm still learning here. I know Hebrew and translate from Hebrew almost every day. But I use the Lexham Hebrew Bible and Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia. What manuscripts am I drawing from when I translate?

 

[TaylorSexton]

Ok so I'm still learning here. I know Hebrew and translate from Hebrew almost every day. But I use the Lexham Hebrew Bible and Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia. What manuscripts am I drawing from when I translate?

I am not sure about the Lexham Hebrew Bible, but the BHS is supposed to be a reproduction of the Leningrad Codex (a complete Masoretic Text). I imagine that the Lexham Hebrew Bible draws from the same text, though. I'll have to look.

 

[Steve Petersen]

The 'Great' Isaiah Scroll (complete) found at Qumran in 1947, was found to be virtually identical to the Masoretic text.
"This copy of Isaiah contains many minor differences from the later Masoretic text (the text which forms the basis of the modern Hebrew Bible). Most of the differences are simply grammatical (for example, spelling certain words with an extra letter that does not alter the pronunciation)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_scroll

Apparently God doesn't know how to spell?

Kinda disproves the notion of supernatural preservation of the texts, elsewise there wouldn't be these differences.

 

[Tree of Life]

I am not sure about the Lexham Hebrew Bible, but the BHS is supposed to be a reproduction of the Leningrad Codex (a complete Masoretic Text). I imagine that the Lexham Hebrew Bible draws from the same text, though. I'll have to look.

So the Leningrad Codex is not what the KJV translates from?

 

[TaylorSexton]

So the Leningrad Codex is not what the KJV translates from?

That's a good question. I am not sure if the AV/KJV translates directly from the Leningrad Codex, but the it does translate from the Masoretic Text, of which the Leningrad Codex is a faithful representative.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Apparently God doesn't know how to spell?...Kinda disproves the notion of supernatural preservation of the texts, elsewise there wouldn't be these differences.

We have to remember that, just as God inspired the Scriptures organically, he also preserves them organically. The presence of minor transmissional mishaps does not mean we do not have the Word of God. He has left himself an unbelievably faithful, reliable, and certain witness.

 

[JM]

I'm sure the Trinitarian Bible Society had an article, I'm sure, but they shut down their website on the Lord's Day.

Some say the AV OT was translated from the Masoretic text of the Second Rabbinic Bible edited by Chayyim in 1525. Others say it's the First Rabbinic Bible edited by Pratensis in 1518.

Check TBS on Monday.

 

[Steve Petersen]

We have to remember that, just as God inspired the Scriptures organically, he also preserves them organically. The presence of minor transmissional mishaps does not mean we do not have the Word of God. He has left himself an unbelievably faithful, reliable, and certain witness.

Ever look at the footnotes in most Bibles? You will often find the phrase 'meaning of the Hebrew uncertain.'

Now, why didn't God preserve the meanings for us?

 

[TaylorSexton]

Ever look at the footnotes in most Bibles? You will often find the phrase 'meaning of the Hebrew uncertain.'

Now, why didn't God preserve the meanings for us?

Of course I look at the footnotes. More importantly, I also look at the Hebrew text we have and its various apparatus. I do not deny there are variants. Even the most hardened "ecclesiastical text" advocates admit this. Furthermore, I never said he preserved the meaning for us. That is something altogether different. Biblical Hebrew is an ancient, ancient language. But, again, just because we cannot exactly understand the meaning of a rare phrase or two does not mean he didn't preserve his Word. Again, he preserved his Word organically, not mechanically, which is what 1) some would have us believe and 2) many caricature the Reformed in general of believing.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Check TBS on Monday.

This is what I would advise, as well. I was going to check today, but realized that they are not "open" on Sundays. Haha!

 

[Tree of Life]

That's a good question. I am not sure if the AV/KJV translates directly from the Leningrad Codex, but the it does translate from the Masoretic Text, of which the Leningrad Codex is a faithful representative.

If this is so then I guess I don't understand the KJV > NASB, ESV arguments. NASB and ESV also translate from the Masoretic Text as it is represented by the BHS. Why is Wilson saying that these translations rely on different texts?