|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Inerrant Bible Manuscripts? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
1) The oldest NT bookjs you refer to are NOT examples of the Majority Text. How can you cite them as evidence of reliability of transmisison and then claim that the Majority Text is the original ?
2) Citing both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text is a similar problem. THe DSS includes texts which more closely match the Septuagint texts - but written in Hebrew. You can't claim that both the DSS and the Masoretic texts both represent an inerrant original when there are scrolls in the DSS that are from a different text tradition - and one that may be as old or olfer than the Masoretic text.l
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi,
The manuscripts we have today are congruent to the autographs. I think “congruent” is a bit of a strong word here, they are maybe similar but they are not congruent.
All languages develope over time and I am sure you are well aware of this fact. However, the manuscripts developed with the culture so in my mind we should have no problems. The manuscripts were also added to over time, which was directly influenced by the culture that the texts were produced in. Let’s take the Book of Exodus as an example of this. The Book of Exodus is composed of texts that span a very long period of time. Evidence of this is ”The Song of Miriam’ (Exod. 15:21) being dated to the 14th century BCE by similarities to Ugaritic poetry (David N. Freedman, "The Song of Miriam," JNES 14 (1955), 237-250) and the reference to ”Pithom’ (Exod. 1:11), which was only used as the name of a city during the Saite period (7th century BCE) only being used to refer to temples and temple estates before that time. ( Lemche N P, The Israelites in History and Tradition. SPCK, John Knox Press, London and Kentucky). So, surely the Book of Exodus has evolved over time and we have no way of knowing what the original autograph was like.
The DSS are used for comparing manuscripts. For example the book of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Greek manuscripts and the Hebrew manuscripts are all in congruence. Yet all three manuscripts above date different era'. I’d love a reference for this if you have it, although it smacks of a Gieslar exaggeration, because this is demonstrably untrue. Take the DSS and the MT as an example, when we look at the book of Isaiah we discover that there are many differences between the texts.
From here In Cave One, however, a full text of Isaiah was found, dated palaeographically to 100 b.c. The differences between the Qumran text and the Masoretic Text (mt), the Hebrew text preserved from medieval manuscripts, separated in date by a thousand years, amounted to thirteen significant variants and a host of insignificant spelling differences, which have proved a gold mine for the study of first-century b.c. Palestinian Hebrew.
Here is a breakdown of some of the variants: Variations in the Q Text from the Masoretic Text: Line 2: Last word: Q = an article "he" is added not in M.Line 3: 6th word: Q = This word is partially obliterated because of the blemish in the leather and the lacuna that follows the word. But the word in Q has a single mem instead of 2 mem's as in M = "ve-romamtiy." Also the yod is missing in the lacuna and abrading has obscured the word in general.7th word: Q = "hemah" 3mpl pro noun and M = "hem" 9th word Q = "biy" prep beth + suf 1cs (in me) corresponds exactly with M and we notice it here only because this is one of the forms that will have aleph appended in the following pages. The differences in spelling and inconsistent use of aleph causes speculation that more than one scribe penned the scroll. Line 4: 9th word: Q = "hithbonen" is obscured by the blemish. Line 6: 7th word: Q = the daleth is obscured by fading in " 'od" (yet or more) Line 7: 3rd word: M= "davah" and M = "davay" (spelling). 9th word: Q = "biy" (in me) and M = "bo" (in it). Line 9: 7th word: M = "shamamah" (desolation) Q = "shamamo" (its desolation) Line 9: Next to last word: Q = omission of "he" in "ke-mapekat" and M = "ke-mahpekat" prep (k) like or as + noun (as an overthrowing). Note the pronunciation would be the same with or without "he." But "he" appears to be edited in above the line. Last word the resh is missing because of abrasion from "zariym" (strangers) Line 10: 8th word: In Q = "natsur" 4th stem Pual Participle translated "besieged" only in this place. It is the same word as "Branch" of 11:1 and refers to the Messiah and to Nazarene or Nazareth. Isaiah uses this word in a "mystical" way. See the article on the use of the word word "Nazar." And comments in the commentary on this verse. Line 12: 1st two words are abraded and difficult to see. They are "shim'u deber" (hear the word of) 6th word: Q = "ve- 'aziynu" and M = "ha-'aziynu." Last 2 words should be "lamah liy" (why) but only part of the mem and the he are visible in "lamah." Line 14: last 2 words: M = "miy biqesh" (who)+ verb (piel) which is not found in Q. Q rather has an inf. "to seek or request this." Line 15: 2nd and 5th words: Q = addition of lamed prep. to each of these words. Line 16: 7th word: Q = "ve- 'atsarathah" cj + nfs cs + suf 3fs ( her solemn assembly) and M = "ve- 'atsarah" cy + nfs (and the solemn assembly). Lines 18 and 19: last on 18 and 1st word on 19: Q adds two extra words to the end of verse 15. Q = " 'etsba'otheykem" [Aramaic] nfpl cs + suf 2mpl (your fingers) and "be-a' von" prep + nfs (in iniquity) Both these words are added and not found in the Masoretic text and they are both Aramaic spellings of the words. The Aramaic spelling is confirmation of the time of editing the scroll. See more on Aramaic spelling in Q. Line 19: 3rd and 4th words: Q = add waw cj to each not in M. 2nd word: "na' " (please) is completely obscured by the lacuna. Line 20: 7th word: Q = a different spelling: addition of aleph to "ya'tom" (fatherless). Line 21: 3rd from last word: Q = "ke-sheniy" prep + ns (scarlet) and M = "ke-sheniym" prep + nmpl (as scarlets). Line 22: 2nd word: Q = omission of aleph in the spelling of this word. Line 23: 4th word: Q = addition of prep beth (in) to "chereb" (sword) Line 25: 3rd word: Q = "hayu" pf 3mpl (they are) and M = "hayah" pf 3ms (it is) Line 26: 2nd word: Q = "kulom" (all of them) and M = "kulo" (each one) 3rd word: Q = " 'ohevey" nmpl cs (lovers of) and M = " 'ohev" nms cs (lover of). 5th word: Q = plur cs and M = sing cs. 7th word: Q = spelling "y'atom" same as previous with aleph added. Line 28: 4th word: Q = ve='enaqam imp 1cs and M = "ve 'anaqamah" imp 1cs + cohortive "he" So, we can see that the DSS and the MT are hardly “congruent”, I think ”similar’ would be a better word to use. But this is just the tip of the iceberg; people who think that the DSS and the MT are identical really could not have done enough research as there are great differences between some books.
The Books of Samuel are good examples and should really be taken as an example of how different the texts are. The Book of Samuel varies widely and frequently from the Masoretic Text. 4QSama preserves a number of superior readings that help correct errors in the Masoretic Text (DSS Bible, 213). Let's look at some of these. One dramatic example is in I Samuel 11 where the MT and KJV left out the first paragraph. The Longer reading in the DSS explains what happens in this chapter. It says: "Nahash king of the Ammonites oppressed the Gadites and the Reubenites viciously. He put out the right eye of all of them and brought fear and trembling on Israel. Not one of the Israelites in the region beyond the Jordan remained whose right eye Nahash king of the Ammonites did not put out, except seven thousand men who escaped from the Ammonites and went to Jabesh-gilead" (The Dead Sea Scroll Bible translated by Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich page 225). Then verse one of I Samuel 11 starts.
(a) I am simply claiming that no original is required. Can you show me otherwise? I really do not have to as this is your baby and you need to provide evidence to support your claim. You are saying, for example, that the DSS and the MT are identical, which is untrue. For your claim to have any credibility you have to show two copies that are 1000 years apart that are identical, you haven’t done this, even your links haven’t provided anything other than their opinion. Are you saying that no original is required to know EXACTLY what the original said, or are you saying that no original is needed for us to have a good idea of what it said?
(b) This is a different debate. I really do not think it is a different debate because if any original text was written for a specific social or political reason then some of that text may not appear at all in the DSS. Cheers. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Greetings,
FitzgeraldR writes:
I am very happy to see you posting in my thread Paulk. Honestly you're one of the people I would like to hear from. A few others are Nosyned and Mark24. However, I will await their arrival.
Paulk writes: 1) The oldest NT bookjs you refer to are NOT examples of the Majority Text. How can you cite them as evidence of reliability of transmisison and then claim that the Majority Text is the original ? I am just citing manuscripts that are not translations. If I am wrong about them being manuscripts and in fact they are translations then please inform me. I have not found any of the manuscripts I have cited to have been translated.
Paulk writes: 2) Citing both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text is a similar problem. THe DSS includes texts which more closely match the Septuagint texts - but written in Hebrew. You can't claim that both the DSS and the Masoretic texts both represent an inerrant original when there are scrolls in the DSS that are from a different text tradition - and one that may be as old or olfer than the Masoretic text.l I answer the same as I did above. Please note though that the original claim is simply nothing more then if we had a Bible translated from manuscripts and not other translations I think it would be reliable.
This message has been edited by FitzgeraldR, Tuesday, November 08, 2005 05:11 AM Thanks FitzgeraldR
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
....BUMP
This message has been edited by FitzgeraldR, Tuesday, November 08, 2005 05:02 AM Thanks FitzgeraldR
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I was addressing your assertion that the texts you listed represented the inerrant original text. As such both my points stand, unanswered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Greetings,
FitzgeraldR writes:
Paulk writes: I was addressing your assertion that the texts you listed represented the inerrant original text I never said the texts I listed represented the inerrant original text. Stick to topic Paulk. Please do not debate what I claim I know what I claimed.*text removed* This message has been edited by FitzgeraldR, Tuesday, November 08, 2005 04:59 AM Thanks FitzgeraldR
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
It seems that you don't know what you claimed. From Message 15
quote: Now there are disagreements between Siniaiticus and the Majority Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls include texts that are different from the Masoretic text.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Greetings,
FitzgeraldR writes:
Paulk writes: Now there are disagreements between Siniaiticus and the Majority Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls include texts that are different from the Masoretic text. I'm afraid you're correct. So the verdict would be that there're differences between all manuscripts(DSS,Minority Text,Majority Text and others) which is very interesting indeed. I have posted this thread in order to prove biblical scripture errant by method of claiming what I thought to be untrue in the first place =). This message has been edited by FitzgeraldR, Tuesday, November 08, 2005 04:55 AM Thanks FitzgeraldR
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
No rush, Fitz, this is heavy material.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
While Fitz is researching, any thoughts on the margin of error for paleography? Most examinations of Aleph and B start with 'believed' to be 4th century CE. Similarly, the Qumran Scrolls are dated by paleography to 1st cent.BCE+.While scribal'styles' and colophons might identify the writer, would not 'styles' carry on over a long period in an age of limited learning? Does a language alter so quickly that one can date the changes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
FitzgeraldR writes: The manuscripts we have today are congruent to the autographs.
Brian writes:
Ok. I think “congruent” is a bit of a strong word here, they are maybe similar but they are not congruent. Fitzgerald writes: All languages develope over time and I am sure you are well aware of this fact. However, the manuscripts developed with the culture so in my mind we should have no problems.
Brian writes: The manuscripts were also added to over time, which was directly influenced by the culture that the texts were produced in. Let’s take the Book of Exodus as an example of this. The Book of Exodus is composed of texts that span a very long period of time. Evidence of this is ”The Song of Miriam’ (Exod. 15:21) being dated to the 14th century BCE by similarities to Ugaritic poetry (David N. Freedman, "The Song of Miriam," JNES 14 (1955), 237-250) and the reference to ”Pithom’ (Exod. 1:11), which was only used as the name of a city during the Saite period (7th century BCE) only being used to refer to temples and temple estates before that time. ( Lemche N P, The Israelites in History and Tradition. SPCK, John Knox Press, London and Kentucky). So, surely the Book of Exodus has evolved over time and we have no way of knowing what the original autograph was like. I completly agree with the possibilty that the biblical manuscripts were added to over time but for the dependency to be directly related to culture is a matter of opinion. I feel, however, that the reason the book of Exodus was perhaps added to is directly related to the fact that this particular book spands alot of time(1300 b.c.e - 1200 b.c.e). http://www.grahamphillips.net/mountain/search3.htm
FitzgeraldR writes: The DSS are used for comparing manuscripts. For example the book of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Greek manuscripts and the Hebrew manuscripts are all in congruence. Yet all three manuscripts above date different era'.
Brian writes:
Ok you're correct here, however, the differences between the two(DSS VS MT) are minor. Take the DSS and the MT as an example, when we look at the book of Isaiah we discover that there are many differences between the texts. FitzggeraldR writes:
Brian writes: The Books of Samuel are good examples and should really be taken as an example of how different the texts are. Ok. Fitzgerald writes:
Brian writes: I really do not have to as this is your baby and you need to provide evidence to support your claim. You are saying, for example, that the DSS and the MT are identical, which is untrue. For your claim to have any credibility you have to show two copies that are 1000 years apart that are identical, you haven’t done this, even your links haven’t provided anything other than their opinion. Ok. Fitzgerald writes:
Brian writes: Are you saying that no original is required to know EXACTLY what the original said, or are you saying that no original is needed for us to have a good idea of what it said? I withdraw my claim regarding DSS congruency with any manuscripts. FitzgeraldR writes: This is a different debate.
Brian writes: I really do not think it is a different debate because if any original text was written for a specific social or political reason then some of that text may not appear at all in the DSS. Ok. Thanks FitzgeraldR
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6238 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
To speak of "congruence" is inane. In fact, to speak of DSS manuscripts as if they represent a coherent variant displays a significant ignorance. Compare the assertion of 'congruent text' [whatever that might mean] with Tov's authoritative characterization of the DSS witnesses as reflecting a pluriformity of textual variants, including proto-Masoretic, Samaritan, and Septuagint (LXX) Vorlage.
The only thing sillier that speaking of congruence is the delusion of some variant 'accurately' reflecting an 'original'. Forgive me - I take that back: the phrase "Inerrant Bible Manuscript" is stunningly naive and speaks volumes about the OP. This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 11-08-2005 04:27 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hey Ca, good to see you again.
Check this out from F's first link: The Dead Sea Scrolls date around the time of Jesus copied by the Qumran community, a Jewish sect living around the Dead Sea. We also have the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating in the second century B.C. When we compare these texts which have an 800-1000 years gap between them we are amazed that 95% of the texts are identical with only minor variations and a few discrepancies. To me, this is one of the major problems between fundies and free thinkers. Even as an athiest, I can recognise that the statements in this paragraph are extremely igorant. I count 5 errors in this paragraph alone (you may find more), so why are believers less inquisitive than non-believers. Brian. PS hang around, I have missed you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Greetings,
ConsequentMoronicAtheist writes:
To speak of "congruence" is inane. In fact, to speak of DSS manuscripts as if they represent a coherent variant displays a significant ignorance. Compare the assertion of 'congruent text' [whatever that might mean] with Tov's authoritative characterization of the DSS witnesses as reflecting a pluriformity of textual variants, including proto-Masoretic, Samaritan, and Septuagint (LXX) Vorlage. The only thing sillier that speaking of congruence is the delusion of some variant 'accurately' reflecting an 'original'. Forgive me - I take that back: the phrase "Inerrant Bible Manuscript" is stunningly naive and speaks volumes about the OP. The purpose of this thread was to prove by the use of people from this forum that in fact without a doubt that the biblical manuscripts are errant. Now if such a wise guy as your self were to have read the entire thread his idiosyncratic behavior perhaps would not have occured. Now when understanding this behavior you have introduced to this thread perhaps shows ignorance on your part. I will say, however, you could have approached this thread with a bit of a better attitude and said something along the lines of: Sir I see that you have not seen what I've seen perhaps you should check these urls out. However, judging by your attitude and username I can see that you are a minor so you are forgiven. Thanks FitzgeraldR
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Why did you feel the need to make this approach, do you not have enough faith in your own ability to research the topic?
Seriously, whoever you are arguing against could be corrected by a 3 minute google. Brian. This message has been edited by Brian, 11-08-2005 07:31 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024