Alexandria Scriptures?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Phillip, Nov 12, 2004.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Acts 18:24 Now a certin Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus.
    (NKJV)

    Wow, he must have become mighty after he got to Ephesus.

    According to some people here-- there were no "uncorrupted" Scriptures in Alexandria.
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] :D
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Apollos would have had extensive training in the Septuagint, the OT for 95% of the Western world. By the time he is mentioned here, there were just a couple of NT books (James, Galatians, Thessalonians) written).

    Since 80% of Jesus' quotations of the OT were from the Septuagint (or variations of it), I think we can put the "no uncorrupted Scriptures" nonsense to rest!
     
  3. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    Question: Did those LXX MSS that Jesus, Paul, and others quoted from contain the Apocryphal books that make up the present LXX or not?

    (I know that none of the NT writers actually quoted the LXX apocrypha directly [Jude's quote from 1 Enoch 1:9 is a matter of quoting pseudepigraphical material], but this does not answer the question as to whether those LXX MSS may have had the apocryphal books bound into them, just as with all existing MSS of the LXX that we possess).

    If so, then were the LXX MSS in some way "corrupt"?
     
  4. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would not know for certain if the LXX Jesus read from contained any Apocryphal books. However, there is something we might think about. Since the canon of scripture was definitely not closed at this time, whether or not the books were contained in the LXX probably did not matter to Jesus.

    He quoted from the ones that He knew would become scripture. (This was one criteria for the canon, of course) He ignored those that would not become part of the canon.

    I do not think that it would be considered corrupt any more than commentary or study guides added to a Bible today.

    Even if they were considered by some at that time to be scriptural; obviously, God knew what the canon would exist of in the future and that is what He maintained for us today.

    I have another question to add to your question. Is there really any doctrine in the Apocrypha that was included in the 1611 KJV that is not correct? Since I have done almost no study on the Apocrypha, I would not know. Anybody?
     
  5. Dogsbody

    Dogsbody
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do any believe that NO “corrupted” manuscripts ever came from Alexandria?

    Interesting to note that even though he was “mighty in the Scriptures” Aquila and Priscilla still “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.”

    Hope for us all! :D
     
  6. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    Philip: "Is there really any doctrine in the Apocrypha that was included in the 1611 KJV that is not correct?"

    Prayers for the dead: 2Mac 12:44-45 (KJV):

    "For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead...Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin."
     
  7. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do any believe that NO “corrupted” manuscripts ever came from Alexandria?

    </font>[/QUOTE]Your question reminds me of the typical IQ test questions. Example: Joe's dog is red, therefore all dogs are red. True or False.

    I know my statement was difficult to follow because of the double-negative. Corrupt manuscripts in Alexandria to not prevent the fact that good manuscripts have not also come from Alexandria.

    Using my double-negative again:

    Can you say that there are no uncorrupt Byzantine manuscripts?
     
  8. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Right, Ziggy, forgot about that one.
     
  9. Dogsbody

    Dogsbody
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, that was my point.

    Nope! I don’t have that information.

    May I again inquire as to your answer on the Alexandrian manuscripts as you have only answered a question with a question and that is a tactic I only wish to reserve for mine own benefit when I do not wish to answer a question. ;)
     
  10. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not a scholar of all of the manuscripts. I would assume that corrupted documents have come from almost every source, including Alexandrian, Byzantine and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

    My question was meant to answered this, I guess you missed that. Sorry.

    Now answer mine, are there no uncorrupt Byzantine documents?
     
  11. Dogsbody

    Dogsbody
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please read my post above. I did, but let me take another whack at it. :D

    I don't know if there are any uncorrupted Byzantine documents(titles, contracts,?) or,

    Manuscripts.

    Doest thou carriest thy chip on thy shoulder? :confused:
     
  12. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are right, I did not read it correctly.

    I get it, you have a copyright on answering a question with a question. I'm sorry. Do I owe you a royalty? [​IMG]
     
  13. Dogsbody

    Dogsbody
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Well, maybe you do! As I have all the wealth I could possibly stand :rolleyes: well,hrump, just deposit it into your favorite charity. [​IMG]
     
  14. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    Some would say the LXX at some places is less corrupt than the Hebrew Massoretic text. Look at Ps. 145:13b (which is not in text of the NASB, NKJV, but included in the text of the NIV, HCSB): "The LORD is faithful in all his words and loving toward all he has made."

    Each line of Ps. 145 begins with a consecutive letter of the Hebrew alphabet, so that by verse 14 we are to expect the NUN line after the MEM of v. 13, but in the Hebrew (except for a single MS) it is completely absent, skipping to the line that begins with SAMEK!

    Did scribes/leaders think the Lord had not been faithful in all his words, and omit the line? (To me it seems they would have had to omit a great deal more in the canon than just this one verse!) Or did the composer omit it intentionally to draw attention to v. 14 or v. 13, or for some other reason? Or did the final "composer" of the OT canon omit it, whereas the other versions who were not privy to the final "updates" were left "corrupt"?

    These are interesting questions. Does anyone wish to offer their explanations?

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  15. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    Philip: "are there no uncorrupt Byzantine documents?"

    Dogsbody: "I don't know if there are any uncorrupted Byzantine documents"

    To solve the hypothetical dilemma: since to the present day no two Greek MSS of the NT have yet been demonstrated to agree in all particulars (this assuming not even a spelling or verbal difference), it should be presumed that all MSS are "corrupted" in some degree.

    The amount of such "corruption" remains a matter of studying the particular habits of the scribes involved. These range from (most scribes) reasonably careful to (some scribes) very careless.
     
  16. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I don't know of a single Byzantine/Eastern Orthodox Greek MSS that is not "corrupted" to some degree. Not one is perfect.

    Even that Catholic Erasmus, limited to just a few Byz texts, had to develop his own synthesis and eclectic blend. Plus a little Vulgate.

    Not one perfect, certainly not the conflated end product of 'Rasmus. Each one corrupt. Whether in monasteries in Sinai, Vatican libraries, Orthodox churches or under glass in a museum in London, they are individually corrupted.

    But TOGETHER in all 5500 documents and fragments, we have the Word of God preserved, pure and uncorrupted.
     
  17. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    Dr Bob: "But TOGETHER in all 5500 documents and fragments, we have the Word of God preserved, pure and uncorrupted."

    Does this include those UBS/Nestle readings that are supported by one and only one MS, ignoring the remainder of the 5499 extant MSS? (I refer in particular to certain readings already cited as having questionable support from only a single MS). And if not, on what basis are all remaining MSS in error and one alone correct? What process of manuscript transmission would result in such a situation? Or is it perhaps more likely the case that 5 editors may have erred in their eclectic decision at some points?
     
  18. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Editors are not perfect. If it is 5499 to 1, I sure would want to understand completely WHY that 1 was chosen. It DOES seem improbable.

    But at the same time, my study of English lit (Shakespeare) show 20 different texts. 19 agreed, 1 was odd. But the ONE was correct, so I never go by "weight".

    Unless it's a Butterball . .

    What? I'm agreeing with Zig? Must be Thanksgiving. [​IMG] [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...