Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Jeremiah: Ms or Lxx?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jeremiah: Ms or Lxx?

    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?

  • #2
    Originally posted by B&H View Post
    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
    When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

    Comment


    • #3
      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.
      sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by NormATive View Post
        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...!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          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?

          Comment


          • #6
            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.
            The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

            [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

            Comment


            • #7
              I wonder if B&H and tabibito have forgotten that Paul studied under Gamaliel.
              The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

              [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                  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!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by B&H View Post
                    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..
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeareís Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by B&H View Post
                      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.
                      The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                      [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by B&H View Post
                        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).
                        The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                        [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                          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?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by B&H View Post
                            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.
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. Ė St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              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
                              The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                              [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by lee_merrill, 10-30-2020, 09:01 PM
                              28 responses
                              117 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post thormas
                              by thormas
                               
                              Started by lee_merrill, 10-24-2020, 07:58 PM
                              13 responses
                              63 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Gondwanaland  
                              Started by Whateverman, 07-26-2020, 11:01 AM
                              330 responses
                              6,602 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Electric Skeptic  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 09-09-2016, 03:27 PM
                              1,242 responses
                              54,965 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post thormas
                              by thormas
                               
                              Working...
                              X