![]() ![]() The real issue is whether, at those points at which the MT and the LXX disagree, whether the LXX may sometimes be the correct reading. It should also be noted that Nolen Jones posits a false dichotomy, between choosing either the Masoretic text (MT) in toto or the Septuagint (LXX), the ancient Greek translation of the OT, in toto. The Masoretic manuscripts are very similar, but they are not identical. So the idea that the “Masoretic text” is one textual tradition copied without change from the time of Jesus is not even remotely true. This is now considered to be inferior to the Masoretic text based on Codex Leningradiensis (dated AD 1008). The OT text used by the KJV translators was a printed rabbinic Bible prepared by Jacob ben Chayyim in the 16 th century AD and published by Daniel Bomberg. The work in these centres was not identical, and it was not until the 12 th century AD that the Ben Asher text from Tiberias came to be considered the Masoretic text. ![]() In fact, the Masoretic text is so named because it was compiled by different scribes beginning in the 6 th century AD, about a thousand years after the close of the OT canon, in a variety of places, most prominently Palestine, Tiberias, and Babylonia. It should also be noted, ere we begin, that the “Masoretic text” from which the KJV was translated was not, as may be assumed, a careful compilation of MT manuscripts. This leads to arguments that run the gamut from plausible though inconclusive to the risible. In other words, they do not draw their conclusions from the evidence, but endeavour to make the evidence fit their preconceived conclusions. Therefore, when it comes to assessing the merits of the various original language texts of the Bible, KJV-Only advocates have already made up their minds as to which is the best text. Now, since the Old Testament of the KJV was translated from what is called the “Masoretic text” and the New Testament from the Textus Receptus, KJV-Only advocates insist that these are the perfect and true texts of the Bible in the original languages, as a corollary to their fideistic view of the KJV. Thus, this position seems to be based on faith in the traditions of men, rather than faith in what God has said. They hold to this position by faith, though it is not faith in what the Word of God says, since nowhere in the Bible does God say that He will have a divinely inspired translation into any other language. There are Christians who believe that the King James Version is a divinely inspired translation and is the only true Word of God in the English language. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2023
Categories |