The Autographa and Inspired Scripture

Not quite sure what you mean by your question, as Romans 3, Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 were all in the original writings.

 

Yes, technically these three passages would be considered by most folks as original writings. But note two things: first, Paul clearly is citing some previous work ("as it is written"); and second, Rob wants us to notice the similarity of the two Psalms.

If Paul is indeed quoting either one of these Psalms (and not some absent text), then it is not an exact quote. This paraphrasing does not meet with our 21st century standards for explictly citing other's material, but it seems that this was standard practice of 1st century authors.

The two Psalms are so similar that if they were submitted to a college professor by two different students, there would be an immediate investigation into which one of the students committed the plagarism. This raises the question as to whether one came before the other: will the explanation be that the Holy Spirit inspired David with nearly the same words on two different occassions; or did the same psalm get preserved twice with slightly different wording; or did David himself change the original wording, resulting in a revised psalm?

I have raised this issue before using the nearly word-for-word parallel between the entire chapters of Isaiah 37 and II Kings 19. I don't believe that I've heard an adequate explanation for existence of what is obviously precisely the same text in two different books (presumably by different authors). Look closer at surrounding chapters and you will find many verses that are also exactly the same.

 

I have done a close comparison of both the English and the Hebrew (as far as my skills will allow).

Most of the differences seen between these two Psalms are justifiable because the underlying Hebrew is different. For example, in the first verse of each there is the difference of "works" (aliyah, Strong's #5949) and "iniquity" (evel, Strong's #5766). David consistently uses Jehovah (translated as "the Lord") in Psalm 14, and uses Elohim (translated as "God") in Psalm 53.

But notice in these two following examples that the KJV indicates (by [brackets] here) that the word was supplied by the translators in one instance, but not in the other. In verse 2 of each psalm the Hebrew word sakal (Strong's #7919) is translated as "were any that did understand" in Psalm 14, compared to "were [any] that did understand". In verse 3 of each psalm the Hebrew word yachad (Strong's #3162) is rendered "[all] together" in once case, versus "altogether" in the other occurrence. Are the words "any" and "all" from the Hebrew, or are they not?

And there seems to be at least a couple of places where the KJV renders the same Hebrew word slightly differently in each psalm. Psalm 14:4 asks if "all the workers of iniquity have no knowledge", but Psalm 53:4 lacks the word "all". In both passages the first portion ("the workers") of the translated phrase seems to based upon the Hebrew word pa'al (Strong's #6466 meaning: to make, or to do).

Also, the Hebrew word qara (Strong's #7121) is translated "call not" in Psalm 14:4, and as "not called" in Psalm 53:4. To the best of my knowledge there should be no difference in Hebrew (can someone confirm?). The word finds itself in precisely the same context in each psalm, so why is only Psalm 53 in the past tense? {In addition, in places where otherwise the psalms are the same, there are at least 4 differences of puncuation between them in the KJV.}

If the Hebrew word is exactly the same, why wouldn't the English words be the same? If its allowable for the KJV to render Hebrew text in the exact same context in two different ways, then, did they set a precedent?

 

I don't dispute this concerning Psalms 14 and 53. David may have used his own basic format to form multiple variations on a psalm.

However, I find that more difficult to apply to II Kings 19 and Isaiah 37. The Hebrew is (99%) exactly the same for over 35 verses straight; and probably two different writers. This leaves us little choice but to conclude that one is a duplication of the other; if that is true, then only one is truly 'original'.

 

Wow, you guys must be biblical scholars.

 

In beginning verses of II Kings 19 and Isaiah 37, I found just one English word difference in verse 3, 4, and 7. Two words different in verse 2. Verses 8 (as well as verse 1 and 5) are identical in both English and Hebrew --

So Rabshakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah:
for he had heard that he was departed from Lachish. -- Isaiah 37:8

So Rabshakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah:
for he had heard that he was departed from Lachish. -- II Kings 19:8​

Suddenly, there are more than 12 differences between them in the next verse: there are 5 English words in Isaiah 37:9 that lack corresponding words in the II Kings version; there are 3 English words in II Kings 19:9 that have no parallel in Isaiah's version; there are 4 occurences where different English words were employed between the two verses (and one puncuation difference). Yet, for all the individual differences, the narratives are essentially the same. The Hebrew seems to have quite a few differences, so I presume that all these differences are justifiable --

And he heard say concerning Tirhakah king of Ethiopia,
He is come forth to make war with thee.
And when he heard [it], he sent messengers to Hezekiah, saying, -- Isaiah 37:9

And when he heard say of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia,
Behold, he is come out to fight against thee:
he sent messengers again unto Hezekiah, saying, -- II Kings 19:9​

If two different reporters each separately wrote a paragraph about an event, there is almost no chance that 3 of their sentences would be exactly the same, or that 4 more sentences would only have one or two words different, and only one would some significant differences. If this did result, it would raise questions: By what authority should the report have been edited? Are the differences an attempt to hide disguise? Are these differences just evidence of inattentive copying? Is one account actually more accurate than the other? Who may be an eyewitness, and who is merely a copier?

The next verse again has only one word difference in English (and two commas). The differences in Hebrew are that in Isaiah three additional letters are found (one letter each in three separate words). The word that is transalted here as "given" and "delivered" is nathan (Strong's # 5414). This Hebrew word meaning to give, put, set is rendered in the KJV over 180 ways, but in the majority as "give" (1078 times); and also as "deliver" (174 times). It is not one of those three differently spelled Hebrew words (nor are the immediately surrounding words). In the exact same context, I can think of only one reason to use two different English words, that is, merely for variety's sake (a subjective, if not random, choice) --

Thus shall ye speak to Hezekiah king of Judah, saying,
Let not thy God, in whom thou trustest, deceive thee, saying,
Jerusalem shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria. -- Isaiah 37:10

Thus shall ye speak to Hezekiah king of Judah, saying,
Let not thy God in whom thou trustest deceive thee, saying,
Jerusalem shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria. -- II Kings 19:10​

How could an English reader know what differences actually reflect the underlying ancient texts, and which are the whim of the translators?