Evidence of textual corruption

[TCassidy]

Now, as to Edward's statements. Where to begin? So much error in such a short post!

"Alexandrian texts refer to a family of Hebrew Texts probably copied in Alexandria. This family includes two of the oldest surviving texts.

First of all, the term "Alexandrian Text," when referring to the Old Testament is the older, traditional, means of indicating what is also called "The Septuagint" or "LXX." A Greek translation of the Hebrew Vorlage Old Testament text, not a Hebrew text.

When referring to New Testament texts "Alexandrian" refers to a family of manuscripts that represent characteristic variants peculiar to Greek texts of the New Testament found in Egypt and the Sinai, particularly Codex Sinaiticus found by Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin von Tischendorf in St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai in 1844.

Catholic translations were made from the TRs (Textus Receptus) source documents much like the KJV was. (BTW, the TRs refer usually to New Testament source documents in Greek.)

Well, no. The Catholic translations were based on the Latin Vulgate, which is a Latin translation of the Western textform, distinct from either the Alexandrian or Byzantine textforms.

 

[grahame]

I can't address whether or not you read the above somewhere, but you probably did read something to that effect. However, the claim that the NT quotes the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament rather than the Hebrew Old Testament is merely speculation. And, I might add, a speculation that does not stand up to close scrutiny. The fact is that when the NT quotes the OT the quotes disagree with the LXX more often then they agree, and they virtually never agree totally with the LXX. It is more likely that the NT writers were quoting the same Hebrew text the LXX was translated from and were doing their own translation into Greek "on the fly" so to speak.The Catholic English translation, usually called the Rheims version, was a translation of the New Testament done primarily by Gregory Martin, late of St. John's College, Oxford University, and was based on the Latin Vulgate. 24 years later the NT was followed by the Old Testament translation done at Douai (commonly Anglicized to Douay) giving the English Catholics what became known as the Douay-Rheims version. The text underlying the Douay OT was the Latin Vulgate, using originally the edition of Jerome, then the Sixtine edition of 1590 and the Clementine edition of 1592. The Latin texts were preferred by Roman Catholics over the Hebrew and Greek texts due to the Council of Trent having declared that the Vulgate was "without error."

Thank you Professor Cassidy for that info. I like the bit about the NT writers doing their own translation "on the fly". Another possibilty (perhaps?) is that the NT writers were (and perhaps this was common practice among the Jews?) used to quoting "the sense" of the passage and did not rely upon a word for word translation as we do today? Just a thought. I "believe" (again I remember reading somewhere. Could be wrong though) that some Jews were superstitious (Not Christian Jews) about quoting the "Law" word for word, but preferred to give the meaning of the Law rather than a word for word rendering.

 

[HankD]

What are your rules for evaluating the variants in the sacred text.
I don't agree with those that say it's sacred because it’s written in the TR/KJV
…for then around and around we go... I'm feeling nauseus and dizzy.

Quick, take an Alka-Setzer!

John Burgon, the author of Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels had a method called : The Seven Tests of Truth and can be found and explained at the following URL:

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/DeanBurgon/dbs2771.htm#III.

scroll down to III. Dean Burgon's Seven Tests of Truth and click on the III.

Basically they are:

1. Antiquity, or Primitiveness;
2. Consent of Witnesses, or Number;
3. Variety of Evidence, or Catholicity;
4. Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight;
5. Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition;
6. Evidence of the Entire Passage, or Context;
7. Internal Considerations, or Reasonableness

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

Another possibilty (perhaps?) is that the NT writers were (and perhaps this was common practice among the Jews?) used to quoting "the sense" of the passage and did not rely upon a word for word translation as we do today?

I believe that to be entirely possible. It is only a small segment of post 19th century Fundamentalism which seems obsessed with word for word translation.

Just a thought. I "believe" (again I remember reading somewhere. Could be wrong though) that some Jews were superstitious (Not Christian Jews) about quoting the "Law" word for word, but preferred to give the meaning of the Law rather than a word for word rendering.

It is true that superstitions regarding the saying of certain words is common among modern Jews (such as saying "Hashem," Hebrew for "the Name," in place of "Adonai" when praying) but that is a convention of fairly late origin. However, translation, as it was done in that time, and even earlier, as evidenced by Nehemiah 8:8, was less strict and more aligned to giving the sense of the donor language rather than an overly literal rendering in the receptor language which tended to obscure the original meaning.