/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

If you're really interested, read this https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/words-bible/question2-what-is-textual-criticism.cfm

It's a jumping off point and leads to an answer.

Interested in this. I've recently started my Christian journey again. I return to the King.

>>833013

Roman Catholics don't use the vulgate as a manuscript source except with the DR. The vulgate itself is a translation.

For that matter the septuagint is a translation of the old testament

>>833015

Based blue letter Bible recommendation

https://www.sacred-texts.com/

The book of Enoch inspired the Bible. That link has all major spiritual texts. Use the search feature to search everything.

>>833013

Hi OP. The various denominations use a multitude of different versions which invariable contradict each other in various points, however the stance of these people is partially apathy toward the Scripture in general and, in some cases, holding a semi-modernist view that God didn't completely preserve his word.

You will find within that spectrum some churches that prefer one modern translation over another, perhaps, but generally, they accept multiple conflicting versions as being not a problem for them. This is known as the "multiple version only" position.

Then you have the churches that continue to use the received text which is represented in the KJV in English. This is the "accurate translations only" view, because it does not accept that altered source texts are equivalent to the received word of God. Those are the two actual positions you will find. Ever since around the 1960s the "multiple version only" view has become the majority, side by side with it has come various cultural degeneracy in those same circles.

But As Paul said in 2 Corinthians:

"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."

>>833015

>The rules by which the textual critic seeks to discover the original text of a document are the same for the Bible as they are for non-biblical documents. There are no special rules that need to be applied when attempting to reconstruct the text of Scripture.

This is false because God has given specific prophecy that he would preserve his word until all generations. If you don't even believe the claims of the Bible why are you posing as an authority to be doing textual criticism. That's malignant. Stop posing as an authority,.

Orthodox use the Septuagint alone. Saint Paul used the Septuagint to refer to the Psalms because he was Orthodox and did not have the texts fabricated in the 10th century by Christ hating Talmudists.

>>833013

Personally, I'm more inclined to trust the Catholic Church when it comes to preserving the texts of the Bible. There's a long tradition of just that in the Catholic Church. The use of Latin in the Catholic Church to preserve the texts of the Bible, a language that is dead and has remained unchanged for 1500+ years, means we've snapshots of how the Early Church translated the Bible.

On the other hand, you've got the Orthodox church which was more based off of oral tradition and iconography. Not that there's nothing necessarily wrong with it, but as a result, the Bible itself was not readily available to many churches in the East because of this. Orthodoxy just never had a long tradition of the preservation of the texts, and most of their traditions and teachings have been passed down via song and icons. Because of this, I'm less likely to trust their Biblical Canon.

Protestants are a mixed bag. And for most, it's just a matter of: use whatever translation you feel like. Of course there are some that hold to a specific translation, but that's because they're rooted in tradition and not textual accuracy.

>>833033

>This is false because God has given specific prophecy that he would preserve his word until all generations. If you don't even believe the claims of the Bible why are you posing as an authority to be doing textual criticism. That's malignant. Stop posing as an authority,.

I think you missed the point. The Bible does, indeed, say what You said, but it also says, "come let us reason." God is not a trickster God who wants us to have false information in that points one way and then have a different source of knowledge. He wants us to be able to reason our way to the facts. If that is the case, then we can see, by reason, which are the proper books to use.

In Luke 11:51, Jesus said, "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all."

This denotes that the original composition of the Old Testament was from Genesis to 2 Chronicles which was the chronological composition of the Old Testament. Notice, in the following texts, no one disputed what He said on that point. That's because they were in agreement with Jesus on the structure of the Old Testament. So, what do we say of the Vulgate or the Septuagint? They were not accepted as God's word. Maybe they were accepted as words of wisdom, but they were not accepted as being on the same level as the word of God.

How does textual criticism then play into this? Easy: it looks at the number of copies in circulation, it looks at what was read, studied, translated and more along the early church to understand what the early church found most valuable. It, again, points back to the original, chronological composition of the Old Testament as Jesus noted in Luke 11:51, Genesis to 2 Chronicles. It doesn't point to the Vulgate, Septuagint or anything else.

So, what's the conclusion? We can conclude by what Jesus said, "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all." And by history that the original composition was from Genesis to 2 Chronicles and that this was accepted by the Early Church. Anything else is just a distraction from God's word.

>>833040

Romans 3:12-18 uses Psalm 14:3 (latin numbering) in LXX and not in the Masoretic, for example.

>>833040

>But it's just as well, because the point is that we have the original, 2400+ year old Hebrew and Syriac-Aramaic text of the Old Testament completely intact.

But we don't! The Masoretic Text is not the original Hebrew, and the fragments we have of the Dead Sea Scrolls in most cases align with the LXX. And it is the LXX that has continually been used by Christians since the time of Christ Himself.

>>833043

Hi anon, you should be using a Bible that has the received Greek text, which are the original words, as its foundation in the New Testament and the received Hebrew originals as its foundation in the Old Testament. It is possible to find resources to help you determine where this accurate original language source is, and if you believe God's word, you know that he that diligently seeks Him will find. He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

>>833047

Why is it your article very early on says this–

>On the one hand, there are those who do not believe that any textual criticism should be applied to Scripture. They argue that God has preserved His Word intact through certain Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. These manuscripts should be the basis of every translation that is made into another language. No other manuscripts should be consulted except these certain ones that have been “providentially preserved.”

And then the article proceeds to say this position is incorrect. Even though I DO believe in legitimate textual criticism on the basis of ONLY using the providentially preserved words (because God promised his word would be for every generation, see Isaiah 59:21, Psalm 12:6-7, Psalm 119:160). So basically the article writers are allowing for new revelations of God's word based on their second observation which states "The Rules Are the Same for All Written Documents." This is NOT true.

"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

– Isaiah 59:21

"''Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.''"

– 1 Peter 1:23-25

There are not secret hidden versions of the word of God that God allowed to be buried for 1800 years. People who believe that God providentially preserved his word are correct, and it is a straw man to infer that this belief prohibits legitimate textual criticism. How did Stephanus, Beza, the AV translators and Elzevir do textual criticism then? Anyone who thinks the entire planet was duped until Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort came around in the later 19th century is disbelieving in the preservation of God's word.

>>833049

In that case, Where do Romans 3:10-11 come from then?

If you say it came from another part of the Old Testament, that would make sense, because so does the whole passage down through verse 18. This is similar to the case of Luke 4:18 in including words from Isaiah 42:7 and Isaiah 61:1-2.

The insertion of all that extra stuff into Psalm 14:3 is clearly the result of the Hexaplar Septuagint synchronizing itself with the New Testament.

>>833050

>But we don't!

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

>>833050

>The Masoretic Text is not the original Hebrew, and the fragments we have of the Dead Sea Scrolls in most cases align with the LXX.

That's blatantly false. Of the Dead Sea Scrolls that contain the canonical literature, about 35% of it is identical with what the Masoretes copied while only around 5% agrees with the Septuagint and about 5% agrees with the Samaritan readings and the rest is unique to the Qumran sect. On a further note, more than 50% of the Pentateuch texts readings in the Dss agree with the MT only 4.5% agree with the LXX and and about 6.5% agree with the Samaritan readings. Again, look at the Great Isaiah Scroll, about 95% of it agrees with the Masoretic text!

>>833059

Just so you know, that's from Isaiah 59:21.

>>833064

Ironically had to alter the wording of my post a little bit, because I know someone will take my post out of context to accuse me of being a Ruckmanite.

The enemies of the truth really are not the most honest bunch, you know?

>>833053

>you should be using a Bible that has the received Greek text

The Received Text is the most corrupt edition of the Greek New Testament to date. It's littered with scribal errors, additions, and expansions to the Word of God. Using a Bible based off of it would be a disservice to anyone looking for textual accuracy.

>>833076

>It's littered with scribal errors, additions, and expansions to the Word of God.

Such as what?

>>833058

>The insertion of all that extra stuff into Psalm 14:3 is clearly the result of the Hexaplar Septuagint synchronizing itself with the New Testament.

You can play this game all you want, but you're only playing yourself. About the removed verses denoting Christ, I would assume you'd say the same. There is nothing I could ever tell you, then. If you have a faith position to reject an older text because it is in Greek, fine. But don't pretend you;re taking an unbiased approach.

>>833090

Are you talking about that one chart people keep posting with Isaiah 7:14 and Psalm 22:16?

There are clear and straightforward explanations for how all of these things are properly referenced in Scripture. Bring up literally any example. If I haven't seen it before, I will make a diligent effort to answer it using the received word, without relying on later texts. If that's what you're really looking for is answers.

>If you have a faith position to reject an older text because it is in Greek, fine.

Why would I be reading the Greek New Testament if that is the case, anon? It is a matter of accepting nothing less than the inspired originals, no matter what language..

I hope only that I am able to provide some kind of a satisfactory answer to whatever your real question is. All due respect.

>>833098

>Are you talking about that one chart people keep posting with Isaiah 7:14 and Psalm 22:16?

No, I did not know about them. The evidence is too overwhelming that Saint Paul used the Septuagint that I did not need to. I'm talking about how the Greek manuscripts are both older and more consistent with the NT but you reject them out of personal arbitrary rules that the man who is in the Bible did not adhere and inventing that they were altered after the NT without any evidence except a coping mechanism.

I have .txt of when I was a prot, here is part of it:

Rom. 3:10–12 is a citation of Ps. 13:1–3 LXX (disagrees with the MT in part), and is also repeated in Ps. 52:2–4 LXX (and is similar to Eccl. 7:20).

Rom. 3:13 is also a citation of Ps. 5:10 LXX and Ps. 139:4 LXX, both disagreeing with the MT (e.g. “spiders’” poison vs. vipers’).

Rom. 3:14 is a reference to Ps. 9:28 LXX.

Rom. 3:15–17 is also a citation of Isa. 59:7–8 LXX

Rom. 3:18 is a citation of Ps. 35:2 LXX

>>833101

Hmm that's not quite the sourcing I have.

vv. 10-12 are from Psalm 14:1-3 and Psalm 53:1-3

v. 13a,b is from Psalm 5:9

v. 13c is from Psalm 140:3

v. 14a is from Psalm 10:7

v. 14b is from Psalm 64:3

v. 15 is from Proverbs 1:16

v. 16a is from Proverbs 10:29

v. 16b is from Proverbs 13:15

v. 17 is from Isaiah 59:8

v. 18 is from Psalm 36:1

>>833078

I'm not going to go full autismo and give example after example of expansions and additions that the Received Text adds to the New Testament. You can research that yourself.

But what you're gonna find is that it has extra verses and included redundancy into Bible verses. It pulls from a very limited number of manuscripts and, during the time of its production, was a rushed work. Today, as we compare to the numerous manuscripts we've recovered over the centuries, it's been usurped by more reliable Greek translations that pull from a far more numerous amount of manuscripts and over a wider range of time, some even dating back to the very early days of the church. All of the manuscripts that Received Text pulls from are post-1200 manuscripts of Byzantine origin.

Point is, there's a reason why the Received Text isn't used anymore for Bible translation. It's just errant.

>>833013

Orthodox value the LXX inasmuch as it represents tradition and history. That's the extent of it. There's a preference, but it's not the end all be all. I can't pinpoint why exactly, but I think it's just the Western mindset which is just more critical and anti-authoritarian. While an Orthodox will accept something as good if their bishop says it is. That's enough for them. And this isn't a new thing either. The Russian Synodal translation (made in the 1800s), for example, uses the Masoretic text. It's basically the equivalent of the KJV or Lutherbibel for Russian speakers, and the basis for all of their liturgical and prayer texts used today. And when some Russians later moved to the US, they adapted the KJV as well. To this day, their English liturgical and prayer texts are KJV based. Some have "modernized" even further, like the Antioch and Greek Orthodox, who use the RSV often. Even the "modern Greek" bibles used in Greece are done with a partnership with the United Bible societies and use the Masoretic and critical NT texts (although to be fair, when the first modern Greek bibles were translated in the early 20th century, there were riots in Greece. But that's not a thing today).

>>833135

I would say that the main divide is between those that look very carefully to the Bible for their doctrinal points and therefore are sensitive to these things; and those that just take it as a general historical document while giving more doctrinal weight in practice to something else. Since the latter group is getting their doctrine from something else that they chose as their authority, the exact way Scripture is laid out isn't seen by them as being a big deal. We see this on the emphasis of what the things people talk about. With liberals, they are really into politics and those kinds of narratives. With others, they are arguing in depth over things that aren't in the Bible such as the exact way to perform some ceremony, what calendar you keep, how you interpret nonbiblical thing X, and so on.