Jeremiah: Ms or Lxx?

[B&H]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I wonder if B&H and tabibito have forgotten that Paul studied under Gamaliel.

[B&H]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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