SBTS Professor: NIV May Not Be Word of God

Wasn't the opposite true about 150 years ago in that they gave more credibility to the LXX rather than the MT. If I recall right Hebrew was not taught much and the LXX was relied upon.

 

I'm glad you came back to this conversation.

You didn't. I'm sorry that it wasn't clear and you misunderstood my post. I was merely commenting upon what authors of apologetic books or 'Bible survey' book write. I had just used your quote as the jumping-off point.

I was hoping you would address my questions that: If the meaning of the superscripts are unknown (or uncertain), AND if they are placed incorrectly in our English translations (Thirtle's theory) then how can they be helpful?

 

I'm not planning on spending a lot of time on this but I did a little checking into the Hebrew of the Psalms as found in the Dead Sea scroll fragments. In those Psalms in which the DDS actually preserved a superscript they are nearly always in full agreement with the MT reading. However, it seems there are a few variants of the Psalm headings between the DDS and the MT.

For example, at Psalm 33 (page 522) in Abegg, Flint, & Ulrich's Dead Sea Scrolls Bible English translation from 4QPsq there is a superscription "Of David. A Song, a Psalm" that is supported by the LXX but not found in the MT.

The MT is a rather later and standardized text as compared to the DDS or the LXX. Why should they be excluded (especially where they are in agreement)? That is, if we are to be concerned about the removal of the word "Selah" from the main text to a footnote, shouldn't we we be equally (or more) concerned about including all genuinely original text?