Serious Question for Translational Perfectionist

It's funny you should mention this. I started working on an essay a few weeks ago that covers this exact thing, and got a bunch of verses from 1 and 2 Corinthians. I eventually hope to compile every time a quotation is made in the New Testament from the OT. More often than not, they are not "word for word" translations. My partial list so far is at http://biblewiki.wikidot.com/bible-translation

 

As you already noted C4K, the problem is that we don't know what exact texts the authors of the New Testament were quoting from. Were they using a Hebrew text? Were they using a Greek text? Were they using an Aramaic text?

If Hebrew, why then is it different from our Hebrew text (the Masoretic text)?

If Greek, why then is it different from our versions of the Septuagint (LXX)?

If Aramaic, why then do we have no exact parallels in the surviving Targumim?

It appears that the OT text that the NT authors quoted from was more fluid than previously thought or perhaps they were utilizing different versions than we have or they were quoting from memory.

Another option is what is called a testimonium. A testimonium was a document that included quotes from the OT that were believed to point to Jesus. There are a few of these (or fragments of these) that have survived. Could it be that some of the NT authors were quoting from one testimonium or another? Its possible...but I don't know how probable.

 

We must remember that the authors of the New Testament books were not only quoting an Old Testament passage, they were also writing under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

In part, because 1st century Greek writers did not subscribe to the same standard of citation as 21st century English writers (word-for-word). Most of the so-called 'quotations' might be better considered by contemporary readers as literary allusions or an indirect reference.

 

...

Exactly!

 

Therein lies the problem though, doesn't it?

 

I don't want to discourage you but it's already been done.

Just last November there was a good book published on the subject,

Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament [Amazon LINK]

(Prices are better on Fetchbook [LINK])

A basic understanding of Greek and Hebrew is needed to fully appreciate it.
IMO the data would be much more assessable once it is digitalized, that will probably will happen after we have all purchased the hardcopy.

Rob

 

That does kind of take the wind out of my sails. Holy cow, 1239 pages? I had no idea what I was getting into...

:tonofbricks:

 

Doug Moo's dissertation was written about the OT in the crucifixion stories if I remember correctly!

 

It’s still a great project: I’m sure you’d learn a lot.
I recently tried to find all the times the NT quoted the Psalms.
Finding it too big a job, I narrowed my project to the book of John.

I came away from the project with a profound wonder at how intimately Jesus knew the Psalms.

Rob

 

A more manageable source is Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, by Gleason Archer and G. C. Chirichigno. The advantage of this book is that it is done in four columns: Masoretic text, Septuagint, NT Greek (Nestle's 26th) and a commentary. It's only 167 pages. :type:

 

Danny

Rev 22-18, 19 says For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the PROPHECY of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of this PROPHECY, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. One may quote the exact word and then give a false PROPHECY would be in trouble. The New Testament writers NEVER did that. Their PROPHECY always lined up the Old Testament scriptures. So when the Gospel is preached one may not even quote the Old or New testament scripture exact, but he will not add to or take away from what it was teaching.

 

1. You have raised some great questions on how we view the translations on a whole.

If translational perfectionism is valid, should the New Testament not perfectly quote the Old?

2. But the notion of translational perfectionism is not valid, so to venture an explanation of the NT's differences with an actual word-for-word reproduction of OT texts is not necessary.

 

That book is in my shopping cart. I'm looking forward to it, for DA Carson is no ordinary scholar.

 

So were the OT writers speaking and writing under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

However, this point alone does not exactly address the OP. Some good points have been made, such as the NT writers (like also Jesus) did not always intend to and did not necessarily directly quote the OT.

However there is at least one instance where this does not appear to be the case where there is a difference in the NT texts vs. the OT texts. Hence, a better example would be the following two passages.

The real 'issue' here, is what does the text say. I have taken the liberty to underline and embolden the places where the OT does not exactly agree with what the NT says, in this passage. The OT reference is that of Isa. 61:1-2a, that Jesus quotes.

Pastor_Bob correctly noted (and which I emboldened in his post) that the NT writers were writing under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I also believe, as I stated, that the OT writers were doing the exact same thing. The writer in Isaiah says that he (and/or whom he is, here, speaking of, at least) is under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. And as Jesus was God, Jesus certainly was 'of one' 'with', 'under', and led by the Holy Spirit. (Mt. 3:16; 4:1; Mk. 1:10,12; Lk. 2:27; 4:1, 14; 18; Jn. 1:32, 33)

However, the point here is that the OT text Jesus used, apparently does not exactly correspond with what Jesus said, from any extant text we have. Note that Jesus read this passage. This is not the same thing as referring obliquely to it, or paraphrasing, as did both Jesus elsewhere, and also the various NT writers. The words that Jesus read, in the 'synagogue scroll' that He was handed, is referred to as "Scripture", by Jesus, and further, He said that that scripture was fulfilled when He read it. To my knowledge, there is no Hebrew OT text or LXX text, or any other version, of which we are aware, that has the exact wording Jesus read, even allowing for translation variance. Yet it is referred to as Scripture, by Jesus, and I thing I'll take His assessment of it.

So it would appear that the "translational perfectionist" must conclude that God indeed preserved His words perfectly and exactly, and not only that, in multiple versions,and wordings, as well.

This also 'answers' or expands on, the posts of C4K, TCGreek, and cowboymatt. BTW, also a belated welcome to cowboymatt to the Baptist Board.

BTW, where did you get that great looking hoagie?

It's lunchtime here, and I'm suddenly hungry for one.

Ed

 

Welcome to the Baptist Board.

Ed

 

Danny Hurley

Thank you Ed:

 

I have no problem with anything inspired by the Holy Spirit, why dost thou?

 

The differences are in that Hebrew translated into English renders only certain words, while Hebrew translated into Greek then into English holds the same contextual meaning but incorporates differing words.

The arguement might come next that is what the MV's incorporate/ new words, but we all know that the full contextual meaning is altered in most every place and even lost in other places due to that process.