Why do all Western Bibles use the Masoretic Text?

[RhaegarTargaryen]

We are discussing the OLD Testament MSS, the Nestle-Aland is an eclectic NEW Testament text. Your comment is off topic and extremely glib.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Except someone further up dissed the N-A, which is why I pointed out that it is the best one out there. Your comment is ignorant of the topic addressed and irrelevant.

 

[JM]

Except someone further up dissed the N-A, which is why I pointed out that it is the best one out there. Your comment is ignorant of the topic addressed and irrelevant.

Those who support the NA do so blindly. They use a similar reasoning as the KJVOist. The NA is not the best New Testament text or it would have stop being run through successive editions. For the sake of brevity I’ll give one example, 2 Pet. 2.10 once was noted in the NA27 as a conjectures by a “biblical” scholar. It was note from a modern scholar with no previous attestation. The new text of the NA28 includes it in their manuscript AS SCRIPTURE without any mention of it be a simple conjecture. This has happened in two other places as well, one in Acts and the other in Galatians, where a modern scholars opinion was included as scripture. Still think it’s the best? Still trust these “scholars?” Dr. Daniel Wallace is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and is considered an expert on ancient / Biblical Greek and New Testament criticism. Dr. Wallace is not KJVO or TR or MT, etc. He wrote, “As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus; death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead. The post-lecture discussions are often spirited, and occasionally get downright nasty.”

“This witness is not offered by the Church as something to think aboutor as a mere suggestion.The testimony of the Church on this point is submissive to Scripture, but authoritative for the saints. For example, if an elder in a Christian church took it upon himself to add a book to the canon of Scripture, or sought to take away a book, the duty of his church would be to try him for heresy and remove him immediately. This disciplinary action is authoritative, taken in defense of an authoritative canonical settlement. This does not mean the Church is defending the Word of God; the Church is defending her witness to the Word. As the necessity of discipline makes plain, this witness is dogmatic and authoritative. It is not open for discussion. God does not intend for us to debate the canon of Scripture afresh every generation. We have already given our testimony; our duty now is to remain faithful to it.” Doug Wilson “

The NA appeals the rationalist and those who prefer to use a rational approach in defining the New Testament text have to admit that scripture is selected by the text critic. In the office of a scholar many manuscripts are studied. The assumption is often stated that “only the originals are inspired.” The scholar must conduct examinations of the many manuscripts to determine which verse is more likely to be inspired and therefore authentic. But what kind of method does he use? What is his rule to determine what is, might be or is not scripture? The Bible critic or critics, whatever the case maybe, must choose and whatever kind of rule chosen, becomes their guiding principle. It is not driven by the logic of faith the Reformers used but a secular naturalistic presupposition. This presupposition denies the God who acts in history and intervenes in our daily lives. It denies what scriptures reveals about itself.

According to Wiki under "Codex Sinaiticus" you’ll notice that less than 300 minor differences are found in the majority of Greek editions. According to Dr. Daniel Wallace the Textus Receptus (TR) differs from the Byzantine text type (BT) in 1838 places. Dr. Wallace also noted that 1005 of those differences were "translatable," or translated. As you can see we have a greater consensus between the TR (which I support) and the BT or MT than we do between the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. We also have a greater consensus among the church as to which readings where accepted by the church for most of our history and that should, IMO, count for something. The foundational MSS for the NA differ internally in 3036 places just in the Gospels alone! The less than 300 differences noted between the different editions of the TR are for the whole NT. The NA is not the best Greek New Testament…not by a long shot. The NA adds the opinions from scholars to the text.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Unix]

Which particular passages in Acts and Gal are they where they introduced scholars opinions either to the apparatus or text?:

The new text of the NA28 includes it in their manuscript AS SCRIPTURE without any mention of it be a simple conjecture. This has happened in two other places as well, one in Acts and the other in Galatians, where a modern scholars opinion was included as scripture.

 

[JM]

The passage from 2 Pet was a suggested reading in the NA27, the note from the apparatus and added it to the NA28 Greek text. I'll have to look up the other two passages when I get more time, I'm answering from a tablet when time permits...you might be able to Google it up in the mean time.

 

[JM]

Unix, I used google and found that it was Acts 16:12 where the suggested word from the apparatus of NA27 was inserted into the Greek NA28. I'll look around later for the passage from Gal.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[abacabb3]

Quote:

"So what were the New Testament writers and Christ quoting? There are 268 references to "as it is written" in the New Testament. Few match the exact wording of the Hebrew Old Testament passages they refer to. Eighty-eight match (or are matched by) Origen's Septuagint. Most of the other 180 don't match any ancient document word for word...

To the OP: As one post has pointed out, by no means all NT quotations are from the LXX. But it's not surprising that some would be. The NT seems to have been written in Greek. You'd expect it to use a Greek translation of the OT, just as theological works in English often quote common English translations. They don't always go back the original language and do their own translation, except where there's a significant difference that matters for the point the author is trying to make.

The fact that any match the LXX shows that it was at least considered "reliable enough" for the audience Paul wrote 2 Tim 3:16 to (presumably Timothy and the churches he shepherded). So, what I really don't understand is why we would reject a written source that we know was approved be Jesus and the Apostles, in favor of one that quotes OT prophesies in a way that cuts Jesus out and the LXX is much closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls ("Comparisons of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint show that where there are differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, approximately 95% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text, while only 5% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint." http://www.septuagint.net/septuagint.htm). I honestly don't get it.

 

[JM]

The truth is, those who believe the readings are from the LXX, really don’t know why they are close readings. These readings could have been introduced by early translators due to the popularity of the LXX and not because Christ and the Apostles actually quoted it. Who knows...only God.

I stand by what I posted above, that “it is written” isn’t a direct quote, this explains why the readings are not direct quotes of the LXX or any other mss.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

Translators to the Reader of the AV:

"The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, ... which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the Word of God."

A fairly positive view of the LXX:

http://www.tbsbibles.org/page.php?s...oazo+dWcmPXN+Ji1hfDw4a202LGZhJS9yYjskbHkkDc/D

 

[abacabb3]

I'm not trying to bash the MT (or even the Vulgate, which preserves earlier Hebrew renderings), but I have a soft spot for the LXX, as it clearly retains the prophesies of our Lord which appear deliberately obscured in the other manuscripts.

 

[JM]

I ordered the Orthodox churches translation of the LXX. Hope its worth it.

jm

 

[abacabb3]

I usually use a translation online, but a paper version or app would secure more reading from me. How much was it?

 

[JM]

$45ish.

I'm interested in the notes as well. I haven't used s study Bible in years so this should be interesting.

 

[abacabb3]

Anything that gets into manuscripts is pure gold, it's the one saving grace of the Harper Collins NRSV Study Bible.

 

[JM]

I doubt the notes will get into the text at all but I'm sure the fathers and mothers will be quoted in support of Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I have a very simple question. In the Old Testament, most western (and Protestant) translations use the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament.

Now, the Masoretic Text is the only Hebrew available to use today aside from what we have found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many Christians believe the MT is totally inerrant, without error in its presentation of the OT, equivalent to the original autographs of the Scripture.

I do not believe this position, because there are parts of the New Testament where the Old Testament is quoted, but clearly the Masoretic Text differs from what is quoted. Further, we have found that the Greek Septuagint more closely matches the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament.

Does anyone want to defend the Masoretic Text?

The fact that the Lord in the New Testament clearly quoted from the Septuagint shows that God is willing to use and bless the use of translations of His Word. But the Old Testament was originally given in Hebrew (and some in Aramaic).