What is written vs. What was said

[jakethebaptist]

I am working through some thoughts on this, and wanted to get some discussion from the scholars here. My concern is primarily in the translation/exegesis of narrative passages recording dialogue and passages in the NT quoting the OT.

The New Testament books are originally written in Greek, and dialogue is recorded in Greek, even though that may not have been the language used in the actual dialogue. Quotes from the Old Testament are mostly pulled from the Septuagint, which often results in a divergence when translating into English from the Old Testament Hebrew. The KJV (NKJV as well?) mostly translates the Septuagint quote, while others may prefer for consistency (NASB?) using the Hebrew from the quoted passage for translation.

I believe that preference should be given to what was actually written.
First, the doctrine of Inspiration applies to the written text. If the scripture itself is inspired, then the actual wording used is what should be considered.
Second, biblical books were not written as documentary histories, but for a spiritual purpose. Selective edits and paraphrasing were used to fit the spiritual purpose of the writing, rather than be a specific record of the dialogue.

A good example I find in the Old Testament is Daniel 3:25. While the KJV, NKJV, and a few others use "the Son of God" most modern translations render "a son of the gods." Unfortunately for me personally I have not studied Hebrew enough to parse the text, but the Septuagint Greek would support the KJV/NKJV translation. I most often hear in favor of the "son of the gods" translation the argument that the pagan king Nebucadnezzar would not have any concept of "the Son of God" and therefore would not have uttered that statement. From an inspiration standpoint, I believe that it is irrelevant what Nebucadnezzar would have actually said or have conceived, but it is more relevant what was actually written. If the Hebrew text more strongly supports from a textual/grammatical standpoint one translation over the other, that is how it should be translated.

Where to you fall on this issue (not specifically the Daniel passage)? Those who have put more time into studying translations, what are some of your thoughts?

 

[Logos1560]

KJV defenders David Reid and Bryan Ross wrote: “”It could not be clearer that what the Lord was doing in Luke 4:18-19 was reading from the manuscript that He held in His hands. And yet what the Lord read does not have verbatim identicality with the passage in Isaiah [Isaiah 61:1-2]. It is not even close” (Myth of Verbatim Identicality: How God Actually Preserved His Word, p. 59). KJV-only author Lawrence Bednar wrote: “Luke/LXX recovering of sight to the blind, isn’t in the Masoretic Text, and the Luke/LXX to preach/proclaim deliverance/liberty to the captives restates the Masoretic, opening of the prison to them that are bound” (Hebrew Masoretic Text: Inerrancy Preserved through Divine Providence, p. 31).

Gregory Lanier and William Ross wrote: “Perhaps the Nazareth scroll deviates from what becomes the Masoretic tradition” (The Septuagint, p. 151). Gregory Lanier and William Ross noted: “’Recovering the sight to the blind’ does not have a direct match in the Hebrew but matches the Old Greek verbatim” (Ibid.). Timothy Law affirmed: “In 4:18, Jesus reads from the scroll of Isaiah to declare that his ministry is, among other things, to proclaim ‘recovery of sight to the blind.’ This is nowhere in the Hebrew version of Isaiah 61:1 and instead comes as a direct citation from the Septuagint” (When God Spoke Greek, pp. 101-102). Richard Longenecker noted: “In Luke 4:18, quoting Isaiah 61:1, the LXX’s (‘recovering the sight to the blind’) appears, rather than the MT’s reading (‘opening of the prison to those who are bound’” (Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, p. 46). Richard Longenecker commented: “Despite the quotation’s general Septuagintal character, Luke omits the line about healing the brokenhearted and adds from Isaiah 58:6 the statement ‘to set at liberty those who are bruised’” (Ibid.).

Douglas Woodward suggested that Jesus was reading from a scroll with an earlier Hebrew Vorlage text that differs from the later [post-A. D. 100] Hebrew Masoretic text as he asserted: “This was not the same Hebrew reading as what became the Masoretic Text” (Septuagint, p. 61). Michael Heiser suggested: “Jesus apparently either read from a Hebrew text that reflected the Septuagint, or Luke fills in the quoted passage with the Septuagint” (I Dare You Not to Bore Me with the Bible, p. 124). Douglas Woodward listed Isaiah 61:1 as one of the “key salvific and Messianic passages altered in the Masoretic Text” (Rebooting the Bible, Part 1, p. 107).

G. K. Beale wrote: “Jesus goes to Nazareth, attends a synagogue service, and is handed the scroll of Isaiah the prophet” (Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, p. 57). John Meade and Peter Gurry asserted that “This ‘book’ [Luke 4:17] must be a scroll, not a codex like a modern book, since Luke is careful to say that Jesus unrolls it and rolls it back up” (Scribes & Scripture, p. 31). The 1855 Union Bible Dictionary also noted: “Thus in Luke 4:17, the phrase ‘opened the book,’ would properly read ‘unrolled the scroll,’ and in verse 20, for ‘closed the book,’ read ‘rolled up the volume,’ or ‘scroll’” (p. 114). At Luke 4:17, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists has the following rendering “unrolling the volume” instead of “opened the book.” Luke 4:17 is translated in 1986 Green’s Literal Translation as follows: “And the roll of Isaiah the prophet was handed to Him. And unrolling the book, He found the place where it is written.” The beginning of Luke 4:20 is literally translated: “And rolling up the roll.” Concerning Luke 4:20, A. T. Robertson observed that Jesus “rolled up the roll and gave it back to the attendant” (Word Pictures, Vol. II, p. 57). Richard Longenecker affirmed that Jesus “reads Isaiah 61:1-2, rolls up the scroll, hands it to the attendant” (Biblical Exegesis, p. 54).

Peter Cotterell and Max Turner acknowledged that “Jesus received the scroll of Isaiah from the synagogue attendant” (Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation, p. 51). Gregory Lanier maintained that “the account of Jesus’ preaching in the Nazareth references a scroll of Isaiah maintained by the synagogue attendant (Lk 4:17-20)” (Authority of the Septuagint, p. 26). Matthew Barrett affirmed that “Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue” (God’s Word Alone, p. 244). Even KJV-only author Ken Matto noted that “He [Jesus] was handed the scroll of Isaiah” (Modern Version Incursion, p. 186). Floyd Jones asserted: “We can be certain that the scroll which was delivered to Him was written in Hebrew” (Chronology of the Old Testament, p. 14). David Croteau maintained that when Jesus “read from the Isaiah scroll in Luke 4:17-20, that most naturally appears to have him reading from a Hebrew scroll” (Urban Legends of the New Testament, p. 123). According to Jewish teaching/tradition, the passage from a scroll for a synagogue service was to be read, not quoted from memory.

The brief passage from the book of Isaiah in this scroll is called “scripture” (Luke 4:21). According to the Bible’s usage of the word “scripture,” it can be used for brief portions or for individual books such as Isaiah that are in the form of a scroll and that are not found in a one-volume complete codex or Bible. Would the KJV’s “opened the book” (Luke 4:17) and “closed the book” (Luke 4:20) be non-literal, dynamic equivalent renderings? Would the rendering “book” possibly be an anachronism that places a thing outside its proper historical time frame?

 

[Jerome]

Uh, FYI, it's not Hebrew.

 

[JesusFan]

I am working through some thoughts on this, and wanted to get some discussion from the scholars here. My concern is primarily in the translation/exegesis of narrative passages recording dialogue and passages in the NT quoting the OT.

The New Testament books are originally written in Greek, and dialogue is recorded in Greek, even though that may not have been the language used in the actual dialogue. Quotes from the Old Testament are mostly pulled from the Septuagint, which often results in a divergence when translating into English from the Old Testament Hebrew. The KJV (NKJV as well?) mostly translates the Septuagint quote, while others may prefer for consistency (NASB?) using the Hebrew from the quoted passage for translation.

I believe that preference should be given to what was actually written.
First, the doctrine of Inspiration applies to the written text. If the scripture itself is inspired, then the actual wording used is what should be considered.
Second, biblical books were not written as documentary histories, but for a spiritual purpose. Selective edits and paraphrasing were used to fit the spiritual purpose of the writing, rather than be a specific record of the dialogue.

A good example I find in the Old Testament is Daniel 3:25. While the KJV, NKJV, and a few others use "the Son of God" most modern translations render "a son of the gods." Unfortunately for me personally I have not studied Hebrew enough to parse the text, but the Septuagint Greek would support the KJV/NKJV translation. I most often hear in favor of the "son of the gods" translation the argument that the pagan king Nebucadnezzar would not have any concept of "the Son of God" and therefore would not have uttered that statement. From an inspiration standpoint, I believe that it is irrelevant what Nebucadnezzar would have actually said or have conceived, but it is more relevant what was actually written. If the Hebrew text more strongly supports from a textual/grammatical standpoint one translation over the other, that is how it should be translated.

Where to you fall on this issue (not specifically the Daniel passage)? Those who have put more time into studying translations, what are some of your thoughts?

What is interesting is that good reliable translations can disagree there, yet still all be English word of the Lord to us for today