You don't think removing parts of the biblical text is an important conversation?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
SBTS Professor: NIV May Not Be Word of God
- Thread starter Jerome
- Start date
You don't think removing parts of the biblical text is an important conversation?
Actually if you want to see something really amazing listen to a Messianic Jewish congregation sing the Psalms. They are very musical.
The Hebrew is much different than the English and the psalms contain a lot of unique meter and have a sonorous voicing to them.
Selah, exists as an important marker within the Psalms to express moments of pause or a brief interlude. I've explained this above. Selah is important as a means of communicating an intention from the inspired author(s) about how the text is to be understood and interpreted.
The big deal is that nobody disagrees that Selah was in the text and there aren't textual variants concerning it. So why remove something that has been in the text since before Jesus?
I'm not against the NIV11 so please don't give me, or anyone else, an ad hoc label as such. You're attempting to dismiss a reasonable conversation by conjecture and libeling the respondents. To your shame you move this into an emotional conversation and forget that it more than that.
See, Rippon, you proved my point in my original post...
Big deal, show me how it is right to remove an aspect of the text that has been there since before Jesus.
I have, and I've read his response to a rebuttal. He has a sound point but still fails to address why it is okay for translators to begin picking and choosing what parts of the text get left out from the original languages.
So why should Selah be removed?
Big deal, show me how it is right to remove an aspect of the text that has been there since before Jesus.
Rippon said:
I have, and I've read his response to a rebuttal. He has a sound point but still fails to address why it is okay for translators to begin picking and choosing what parts of the text get left out from the original languages.
So why should Selah be removed?
Agreed, as it would tend to be the "best" to study/read bible version that was not done from the "literal/formal" camp
The old NIV leaves words out as well, and more important ones than Selah IMO (though I wouldn't leave that out either).
I'm not talking about the differences in the NT texts, but about prepositions and conjunctions.
For example, check out Isaiah 12:2-3 in the NIV and NKJV.
Steve
I'm not talking about the differences in the NT texts, but about prepositions and conjunctions.
For example, check out Isaiah 12:2-3 in the NIV and NKJV.
Steve
Would that be because of making 'different decisions" on just WHAT was written in the original texts, that the hebrew might not be "crystal clear" there to translate into English equivalent?
As do know there are passage especially in OT text, where the translators have to use theur study tools/texts/lexicons etc to make "educated quess" as to what was the best rendering?
I don't think it is different from the old NIV, why the big deal now? No doctrinal issue, we don't even really know fully what it means. It is in the footnotes so you know it is there if you must have it.
Thanks for your honesty.
It is "more dynamic" than the ESV,NRSV and HCSB and others --but again,it's a matter of degree --it's not as if the NIV is a wholly different animal.
Things need to be taken on a case-by-case basis.
I recognize a lot more than that. It almost sounds as if some folks are advocating an interlinear approach. The ESV uses more of a functionally-equivalent approach than many believe for example.
Between an interlinear approach at the extreme left of the graph and The Message at the extreme right side --I would put the NLTse right smack-dab in the middle. The NIV is actually in a cluster with the HCSB,NAB,ISV and Net Bible gathered together between the NASB,ESV and NRSV on the immediate left and the NJB,REB,CEB,GW and NLTse on the immediate right side.
Are you a TR guy? Since I am in the camp that relies more on the Alexandrian category -- I actually think that the TR proponents rely on a textual basis that is compromised and certainly used a paraphrased documents. Ironic,huh? Many liberties were taken with the in making the TR and consequently the KJV and NKJV.
You favor a literalism which is not realistic. Meanings come in primarly in groupings of phrases,sentences and more. I don't believe in isolating individual words as if that can somehow authenticate the original in a way that restructuring cannot.
And you are entitled to continue to believe that.
If it doesn't apply to you,why worry?
Have you ever made a conjecture? Yes,I am conjecturing. Is that so bad?
Well,the fuss over the 2011 NIV is not nearly as intense as the incredible stunts they pulled over the TNIV. But the old tendencies die hard.
By calling some ESV zealots NIV-bashers? That hardly qualifies as libel.
I am sorry if you misconstrued things.
Absolutely.
I do not disagree.
This is true. I recognize that the NIV is actually MORE accurate in some places than some of my preferred versions.
My only beef is that I prefer a more formally equivalent theory of translation.
Agreed.
You may be right.
No, I am not a TR guy. I recognize the superiority of the Alexandrian texts and the advantages they bring to the table.
I will say this, however. The TR is a very good text. It is somewhat inferior. But in our righteous disdain for the KJVOers and their psycho, pseudo theory of translation we need to be careful about swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction- the direction of unbalanced criticism against the TR.
One PROOF that it is a very good text is its overwhelming agreement with the better text. If the TR is bad then the Alexandrian can't be good because they agree so much.
I do not know.
I expected that this would come. I tried to stave it off by showing that I anticipated it and answering it beforehand.
I have said nothing to indicate that I prefer an unrealistic literalistic approach to translation. I think you are mistaken here due to the fact that you have accidentally lumped me in with TR only people- or worse- KJV only people.
One example of what I do not like is contemporizing metaphorical language just because we no longer utilize those ancient metaphors.
We should try to get as close as reasonably possible to the original words even if that means that the reader must do some extra study to get the meaning. We lose too much with too many liberties.
Thank you.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
So, how do you feel about the superscriptions to (some of) the Psalms? They are 'explanatory' notes (rather than 'musical' notations like Selah).
Do you think that David himself would have written "A Psalm of David..." at the beginning of his psalms, or perhaps they were added later by some one else? They are indeed present in the ancient Hebrew text; but are they original with the author? Should they be in our English translations?
If they are inspired scripture, why should they be treated differently than the rest of the text? (many versions set them apart by space without verse number, and different or smaller typeface)
Last edited by a moderator:
stupid browser crashed just as I hit post...argh!
I think the superscriptions should be included in the English translations. They are clearly part of the original, accepted text. I've been working through some of the Psalms over the past several weeks (not related to this) and have yet to find a superscription or attribution that is a variant. They seem to be part of the original text.
I explained this at length in my first (lost) post but....I don't have a problem with believing that God inspires the original author(s) of a text but also a later, secondary, editor. Clearly there are examples in both Testaments of a subsequent interpolation of content, from an editor, that helps clarify and bolsters the original text. Why should we think that God only inspires one person(s) at the original crafting of a text?
If a Psalm says, "Of David" (the lamed prefix here) why not include it? Seems a helpful part of the text. Psalms is a unqiue book of books. It has five sections and specific reasons why certain psalms end up in one and other in another. The later editor (David was not the only psalmist) clearly added helpful notes. They should be included. Are we really going to say the later compiler/editor absolutely cannot be inspired?
Well keep in mind one of the helpful features on many contemporary translations is the genre-ic approach to understanding a text. They situate the various texts in their appropriate genre (poetry in poetic stanzas, narratives in paragraph, etc) and that is helpful for the reader. If we were to read the original Hebrew it would be dry, and the Greek would: LOOKLIKETHISANDTHATISREALLYHARDTOREAD
Nevertheless, when we consider that inspiration doesn't begin and end with one author of a text that expands how we understand the text. For instance it is obvious that while Paul is the author of Romans Paul didn't write out Romans, Tertius did (cf. Rom 16:22.) Tertius was Paul's secretary (a male one...not that that matters) who took Paul's dictation and crafted it into a letter. I believe it is reasonable to say Paul and Tertius were equally inspired authors of Romans.
When it comes to this issue with the Psalms why do we think we can say what is in and what isn't in the text?
Specifically here there are no variants. These pieces of material are in the text and helpful to someone. It is, imho, the height of intellectual hubris for contemporary academics to say they know the text and intent of the Scriptures better than the original authors. This is exactly what the NIV people are doing. They are saying that even though there is no reason to remove Selah, they understand the text better than the author and can disregard the word because they don't see it as useful.
That is silly. I like the NIV, but not more than other translations. This is a big issue because it begins a slide towards exclusion in translation that isn't permissible.
Thanks for the great questions.
I think the superscriptions should be included in the English translations. They are clearly part of the original, accepted text. I've been working through some of the Psalms over the past several weeks (not related to this) and have yet to find a superscription or attribution that is a variant. They seem to be part of the original text.
franklinmonroe said:
I explained this at length in my first (lost) post but....I don't have a problem with believing that God inspires the original author(s) of a text but also a later, secondary, editor. Clearly there are examples in both Testaments of a subsequent interpolation of content, from an editor, that helps clarify and bolsters the original text. Why should we think that God only inspires one person(s) at the original crafting of a text?
If a Psalm says, "Of David" (the lamed prefix here) why not include it? Seems a helpful part of the text. Psalms is a unqiue book of books. It has five sections and specific reasons why certain psalms end up in one and other in another. The later editor (David was not the only psalmist) clearly added helpful notes. They should be included. Are we really going to say the later compiler/editor absolutely cannot be inspired?
franklinmonroe said:
Well keep in mind one of the helpful features on many contemporary translations is the genre-ic approach to understanding a text. They situate the various texts in their appropriate genre (poetry in poetic stanzas, narratives in paragraph, etc) and that is helpful for the reader. If we were to read the original Hebrew it would be dry, and the Greek would: LOOKLIKETHISANDTHATISREALLYHARDTOREAD
Nevertheless, when we consider that inspiration doesn't begin and end with one author of a text that expands how we understand the text. For instance it is obvious that while Paul is the author of Romans Paul didn't write out Romans, Tertius did (cf. Rom 16:22.) Tertius was Paul's secretary (a male one...not that that matters) who took Paul's dictation and crafted it into a letter. I believe it is reasonable to say Paul and Tertius were equally inspired authors of Romans.
When it comes to this issue with the Psalms why do we think we can say what is in and what isn't in the text?
Specifically here there are no variants. These pieces of material are in the text and helpful to someone. It is, imho, the height of intellectual hubris for contemporary academics to say they know the text and intent of the Scriptures better than the original authors. This is exactly what the NIV people are doing. They are saying that even though there is no reason to remove Selah, they understand the text better than the author and can disregard the word because they don't see it as useful.
That is silly. I like the NIV, but not more than other translations. This is a big issue because it begins a slide towards exclusion in translation that isn't permissible.
Thanks for the great questions.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Thank you for your thoughtful answers; I'm basically in agreement with you. Let's explore this a bit more.
[Very late; more later.]
I would agree that they are part of the traditionally accepted text. However I would not use the term "original" to describe them since that seems to imply that they would also be the words of the same author as the primary content.
There may be some superscript discrepancies between the Greek LXX and Hebrew MT; in addition, there definitely are a couple of particular NT references to psalms that do not actually have corroborative superscript data in the Hebrew (both of these seem to suggest that some superscripts may have dropped out of the Hebrew).
Does "of David" means that: David wrote it himself; that David commissioned it by another writer; or, that is was created independently by an unknown psalmist and it is merely dedicated to David? Without knowing what some of the notations mean, how helpful are they really?
And it is possible (due in part to the difficulty you described of the original Hebrew presentation) that some musical notations contained in 'headers' may actually now be attributed to the wrong psalms in our English text! If that is true, how helpful is that?
[Very late; more later.]
Last edited by a moderator:
I know the subject under discussion involves the Old Testament. However, Philip Comfort says :"It is quite certain that no book of the NT had an inscription or a subscription...Thus,all inscriptions and subscriptions are scribal addenda." (p.721,22 of New Testament Text And Translation Commentary)
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Here below is a statement about "selah" drawn from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (online) --
Celah, though not strictly a title, may well be discussed in connection with the superscriptions. It occurs 71 times in the Psalms and 3 times in Habakkuk. It is almost certainly technical term whose meaning was well known to the precentor and the choir in the temple. The Septuagint always, Symmachus and Theodotion generally, render diapsalma, which probably denotes an instrumental interlude. The Targum Aquila and some other ancient versions render "forever." Jerome, following Aquila, translates it "always." Many moderns derive Celah from a root meaning "to raise," and suppose it to be a sign to the musicians to strike up with a louder accompaniment. Possibly the singing ceased for a moment. A few think it is a liturgical direction to the congregation to "lift up" their voices in benediction. It is unwise to dogmatize as to the meaning of this very common word.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
I don't recall any writer that has produced a 'Bible survey' book ever stating that the number of biblical authors & editors probably runs up to 100 or more (well, maybe Bart Ehrman would write something similar to that). The apologists always write something like "the Bible had about 40 authors" (implying a margin of error of one or two). Let's face it: we are comfortable with knowing the names and some background history of our scriptural penmen: like Moses, David, John, and Paul. Knowing that many, many unknown editors took part is unsettling.
Last edited by a moderator:
Couple of thoughts in reply to the above replies:
1. I don't recall stating, or implying, that there would be 100+ editors/authors of the books comprising biblical text.
2. No one has shown, with any credible points, that selah wasn't in the original, authoritative text. Thus again my question: Who are we to decide what parts of the biblical text, as extant as we know, which are or are not to be included in contemporary versions.
3. I'm not unsettled by the point that there were later editors and compilers of inspired writings, who were equally inspired, which were gathered together and frame the text of the Bible which we have today. Is God only limited to inspiring the original authors?
4. franklinmonroe does bring up a good point about discrepancies between the LXX and Hebrew MT. Thus we must default to the Hebrew MT since the LXX is a translation of the MT. Selah is extant to the MT. Why should it, thus be, excluded?
5. I think my point, which is continues to be unassailable, is again about the basic nature of the translators' task in the contemporary era. Are we going to allow present day scholars the point that they understand the original text better than the original authors? If this line is accepted that we should be mindful of the example of Liberal schools which sought to remove countless paragraphs of ambiguous (at the time) texts only to discover a generation later through growth in biblical scholarship that the texts were no ambiguous at all. Rather the Liberal scholars were incorrect in their read.
Enjoying the conversation.
1. I don't recall stating, or implying, that there would be 100+ editors/authors of the books comprising biblical text.
2. No one has shown, with any credible points, that selah wasn't in the original, authoritative text. Thus again my question: Who are we to decide what parts of the biblical text, as extant as we know, which are or are not to be included in contemporary versions.
3. I'm not unsettled by the point that there were later editors and compilers of inspired writings, who were equally inspired, which were gathered together and frame the text of the Bible which we have today. Is God only limited to inspiring the original authors?
4. franklinmonroe does bring up a good point about discrepancies between the LXX and Hebrew MT. Thus we must default to the Hebrew MT since the LXX is a translation of the MT. Selah is extant to the MT. Why should it, thus be, excluded?
5. I think my point, which is continues to be unassailable, is again about the basic nature of the translators' task in the contemporary era. Are we going to allow present day scholars the point that they understand the original text better than the original authors? If this line is accepted that we should be mindful of the example of Liberal schools which sought to remove countless paragraphs of ambiguous (at the time) texts only to discover a generation later through growth in biblical scholarship that the texts were no ambiguous at all. Rather the Liberal scholars were incorrect in their read.
Enjoying the conversation.
Of course. Do you believe that scribes after the Apostolic era were inspired in their writings which are not found in the canon of 66 books?!
Just what are you referencing in particular?