Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: TNIV Textual Resources

Expand Messages
  • malcolm robertson
    Dear Daniel, The textual note that I have from the JPS 2nd ed.(Leningrad Codex manuscript) reads thus: The number is lacking in the Heb. text; also, the
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 18, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Daniel,
       
      The textual note that I have from the JPS 2nd ed.(Leningrad Codex manuscript) reads thus:
       
      "The number is lacking in the Heb. text; also, the precise context of the "two years" is uncertain.  The verse is lacking in the Septuagint." 
       
      The ESV and NASB both have much the same, but the NIV notes Acts 13:21 ...ETH TESSARAKONTA and the fact some late LXX MSS support this reading.
       
      The source of Luke's information however does not of necessity come from the MT or LXX biblical text.  Just like in Luke 3:36 the precise source of his information may remain unknown to us.
       
      Here is an excerpt from a post to LXX studies:
       
      "What I meant was this. The source of St.Luke's knowledge is unknown to us (remember & cf Lk 1:1-4). The MT text does not mention Cainam. Some copies of the OT Greek do. There could be another Jewish written source - annals or birth records perhaps that include Cainam which we do not know of at this state in our knowledge. This idea is supported by the fact that we simply do not know what some references are that can be found within the OT text itself (e.g. Ezra 4:15; Dan 9:2(explicitly); 2 Chron 20:34?).

      A scribe could have (working under Steve's "scribal habits" modus) inserted Cainan based upon unknown Jewish source material - including his own general knowledge store - and not necessarily that of an OT Greek exemplar or even a Hebrew exemplar - whatever its nature - i.e.lectionary, prayer book, grammar, etc."

      If one thinks that St.Luke's dictum at Lk 3:36 needs justification it is only in the mind of a scribe or that of a present day source seeker. St. Luke's source is unknown to us - period."

      As to the authenticity of 1 Sam 13:1 the verdict is still out.
       
      Cordially in Jesus,
       
      Malcolm Robertson
      ________________________________
       
      "Daniel Buck" wrote:
      > I imagine Josephus is cited [in the TNIV] for Saul's age in I
      Samuel 13:1. That's quite inconsistent in my opinion, since no one
      that I know of has ever followed the reading of Josephus, Julius
      Africanus, or any historian for the name of Salah's father in Luke
      3:36. Following the text makes no less sense historically in one
      passage than the other, and there's ancient evidence (02 03 and 05,
      respectively) for omitting both problem passages altogether.>

      I checked into this myself, and my surmising was untrue. The TNIV
      cites Byzantine manuscripts for Saul's age (30), and a textual
      reconstruction for the years of his reign (42)--thus reversing the
      numbers in the original NASB.

      The Qumran scroll 4Q51 has a Hebrew text which seems to underlie the
      LXX in I and II Samuel, but it is deficient before chapter 14, so
      there's no B.C.E. MS evidence for or against the inclusion of I
      Samuel 13:1.

      Likewise, there's no equally ancient evidence for or against the
      inclusion of "Cainan" in Genesis 5:24 (which is presumed to underlie
      Luke 3:36). So the CBT's inequal treatment of these two passages
      serves as a lopsided exception to their general tendency to add to
      the Hebrew and subtract from the Greek.

      Daniel Buck



      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com

    • Daniel Buck
      ... of the two years is uncertain. The verse is lacking in the Septuagint. ... 13:21 ...ETH TESSARAKONTA and the fact some late LXX MSS support this
      Message 2 of 2 , Aug 22, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        malcolm robertson wrote:

        > The textual note that I have from the JPS 2nd ed.(Leningrad Codex
        manuscript) reads thus:

        > "The number is lacking in the Heb. text; also, the precise context
        of the "two years" is uncertain. The verse is lacking in the
        Septuagint."

        > The ESV and NASB both have much the same, but the NIV notes Acts
        13:21 ...ETH TESSARAKONTA and the fact some late LXX MSS support
        this reading.

        > The source of Luke's information however does not of necessity
        come from the MT or LXX biblical text. Just like in Luke 3:36 the
        precise source of his information may remain unknown to us.
        >
        . . . St. Luke's source is unknown to us - period."

        > As to the authenticity of 1 Sam 13:1 the verdict is still out.


        I suppose this would be a good place to give my own preferred
        explantion, as I have devoted more research to 1 Sam 13:1 than to
        any other textual problem in either Testament. Let me state first of
        all that my theory would be falsified by the discovery of any Hebrew
        manuscript of this verse predating the Christian era.

        Sometime in the 2000 years prior to the composition of the latest ms
        of I Samuel 13, the custodian of a ms noted that the usual reignal
        formual (was ___ years old in his reigning, and he reigned over
        Israel for ____ years) was missing for Saul. So he inserted the
        formula in the margin of his copy, intending to fill in the
        information when he found it (as was pointed out, there are several
        indications in the book of Acts that various facts of extrabiblical
        history were still extant in the early years of the Christian era).

        Whether he ever found this information or not, what apparently
        happened was that his marginal note (as often happened) found its
        way into the text of a later copy at the beginning of chapter 13.
        That it could even be translated "Saul reigned one year; and when he
        had reigned two years, he" shows that the KJV editors were already
        familiar with the argument that the custodians of the Masoretic text
        had advanced for interpreting this verse so differently than its
        reignal formula demands. Without the pointing of the MT, the verse
        has no numbers in it at all, and all manuscripts of 1 Samuel in
        Greek give testimony that it has no place in the narrative.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.