Here is my discussion of the Silenced Women of Corinth passage. As with most of my blog posts, I do not mean to imply that it is a scholarly masterpiece; most blog posts are written off the top of my head. In this case, the article was written for a church community, although it attempts to update the reader on the latest academic discussion--which is on-going.
If I were to re-write it, I would bring into the discussion a paper presented by Jeffrey Kloha at Society of Biblical Literature (Washington D.C., Nov, 2006), arguing that his examples of Western displacements--fragmentary as they are and hardly comparable to redactionary displacement of whole texts--do not make his case. But also, I would soften my own conclusions; perhaps I come across as too certain.
Information about recent developments in the debate is taken from Eldon Epp's Junia: The First Woman Apostle.
http://jmleonardfamily.googlepages.com/silencedwomenofcorinth
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
Saturday, 11 October 2008
Free and Strict Transmission of the New Testament Text
The Alands express in the following paragraph their view that early scribes felt free to improve or paraphrase their texts, and that we have extant manuscripts to prove it:
"Until the beginning of the fourth century the text of the New Testament developed freely. It was a " living text," unlike the text of the Hebrew Old Testament, which was subject to strict controls because (in the oriental tradition) the consonantal text was holy. And the New Testament text continued to be a 'living text' as long as it remained a manuscript tradition.... They also felt themselves free to make corrections in the text, improving it by their own standards of correctness, whether grammatically, stylistically, or more substantively. This was all the more true of the early period, when the text had not yet attained canonical status, especially in the earliest period when Christians considered themselves filled with the Spirit. As a consequence the "Early text" was many-faceted, and each manuscript had its own peculiar character. This can be observed in such early papyri as p45, p46, p66, and so forth. The fact that this was not the normative practice has been proved by p75, which represents a strict text just as p52 of the period around A.D. 125 represents a normal text. It preserves the text of the original exemplar in a relatively faithful form... (69).
The bulk of the paragraph suggests a sceptical view of the transmission of the New Testament text in the early period--that we should be rather glum about the reliability of the New Testament text. However, it might be easy to overlook the penultimate sentence in which the Alands profess that not all manuscripts were so free in their transmission. Quite the contrary, there was a very careful, strict approach to the transmission of the biblical text in the earliest period and that this was "the normative practice."
Some would contest this assertion that strict transmission was the normative practice in the second and third centuries. This is the location of one of the great fronts in current textual criticism.
"Until the beginning of the fourth century the text of the New Testament developed freely. It was a " living text," unlike the text of the Hebrew Old Testament, which was subject to strict controls because (in the oriental tradition) the consonantal text was holy. And the New Testament text continued to be a 'living text' as long as it remained a manuscript tradition.... They also felt themselves free to make corrections in the text, improving it by their own standards of correctness, whether grammatically, stylistically, or more substantively. This was all the more true of the early period, when the text had not yet attained canonical status, especially in the earliest period when Christians considered themselves filled with the Spirit. As a consequence the "Early text" was many-faceted, and each manuscript had its own peculiar character. This can be observed in such early papyri as p45, p46, p66, and so forth. The fact that this was not the normative practice has been proved by p75, which represents a strict text just as p52 of the period around A.D. 125 represents a normal text. It preserves the text of the original exemplar in a relatively faithful form... (69).
The bulk of the paragraph suggests a sceptical view of the transmission of the New Testament text in the early period--that we should be rather glum about the reliability of the New Testament text. However, it might be easy to overlook the penultimate sentence in which the Alands profess that not all manuscripts were so free in their transmission. Quite the contrary, there was a very careful, strict approach to the transmission of the biblical text in the earliest period and that this was "the normative practice."
Some would contest this assertion that strict transmission was the normative practice in the second and third centuries. This is the location of one of the great fronts in current textual criticism.
Thursday, 2 October 2008
Text and Canon Papers at Evangelical Theological Society Meeting
This year's theme for the ETS annual meeting is Text and Canon. There are many papers being presented on the issue. I've listed some of them here which I plan to attend.
The ETS annual meeting will be held in Providence RI Wed Nov 19-21, just prior to the Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting in Boston.
Wednesday9:20 AM-10:00 AM
David Hutchison (Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary)
The Next Great Step in New Testament
Textual Criticism
10:10 AM-10:50 AM
John Wei-Ho Wu (Logos Evangelical
Seminary)
Authenticity of the Distinctively Byzantine
Shorter
11:00 AM-11:40 AM
Andrew W. Pitts (McMaster Divinity
College)
A Re-assessment of the Use of Variant-
Units in New Testament Textual Criticism:
Definitions and Boundaries
4:30 PM-5:10 PM
Michael Bird (
College)
The Role of “Canon” in New Testament
Room 556 B
TEXT & CANON
Panel Discussion of Three Views on
the New Testament Use of the Old
Testament
Moderator: Kenneth Berding (
of Theology)
2:55 PM-3:15 PM
Jonathan Lunde (
Theology)
Taxonomical Framework
3:15 PM-3:35 PM
Walter Kaiser Jr. (Gordon-Conwell
Theological Seminary)
Single Meaning, Unified Referents
3:35 PM-3:55 PM
Darrell L. Bock (
Seminary)
Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts, and
Referents
3:55 PM-4:15 PM
Peter Enns (
Seminary)
Fuller Meaning, Single Goal
4:15 PM-4:30 PM
INTERMISSION
4:30 PM-5:30 PM
Q&A Discussion
Westin Narragansett Ballroom A,
Ground Floor
TEXT & CANON
THEME: New Testament Canon
2:50 PM-3:30 PM
Edward Stevens (International Preterist
Association)
The New Testament Canon Formed by
AD 70
Westin Narragansett Ballroom B,
Ground Floor
TEXT & CANON
THEME: New Testament Text
3:40 PM-4:20 PM
Michael Pahl
Scripture and Tradition, Orality and Gospel:
A New Look at an Old Controversy
4:30 PM-5:10 PM
Mike Arcieri (Faculté de théologie
évangélique,
Complete Listing of All Variant
between the Robinson-Pierpont 2nd ed.
and the Nestle-Aland 27th ed.
5:20 PM-6:00 PM
Richard Taylor (
Seminary)
On the Use (and Abuse) of a Critical
Apparatus
Thursday
Room 553 A/B
SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
8:30 AM-9:10 AM
Dean Deppe (Calvin Theological Seminary)
Textual Alterations in the Gospels of the
TNIV
9:20 AM-10:00 AM
Darrell L. Bock (
Seminary)
Response
Thursday
Westin Waterplace Ballroom II,
2nd Floor
TEXT & CANON
THEME: New Testament Text
8:30 AM-9:10 AM
Douglas Huffman (Northwestern College)
A Survey of Text—Critical Issues in the
Book of Acts
10:10 AM-10:50 AM
James Sweeney (
Did the Gospel of Matthew Use an Early
Form of the Didache as a Source?
Westin
3rd Floor
TEXT & CANON
THEME: New Testament Text
8:30 AM-9:10 AM
Abidan Paul Shah (Southeastern Baptist
Theological Seminary)
Rewriting History: An Analysis and Evaluation
of Current Revisionist Approaches to
New Testament Textual Criticism and Their
Impact on New Testament Studies
9:20 AM-10:00 AM
Douglas Estes (Western Seminary—San
Jose)
John versus the Canon: A Counterfactual
View of the Fourth Gospel
10:10 AM-10:50 AM
Jeff Cate (
The Angry Jesus in Mark 1:41
Westin Waterplace Ballroom III,
2nd Floor
TEXT & CANON
THEME: New Testament Text
8:30 AM-9:10 AM
Adam Messer (
Seminary)
Unveiling Patristic Impressions: Theology
and Textual Corruption in Matthew 24:36
9:20 AM-10:00 AM
Timothy Ricchuiti (
Seminary)
Tracking Thomas: A Text-Critical Look at
the Transmission of the Gospel of Thomas
10:10 AM-10:50 AM
Vern Poythress (
Seminary)
The Interaction of General Knowledge and
Canon in Appreciating Biblical Narratives,
Illustrated with Luke 5:12-16
11:00 AM-11:40 AM
William Warren Jr. (
Theological Seminary)
Canons, Copies, Communities, and Conflicts:
The Text of the New Testament in the
Second and Third Centuries
Westin Narragansett Ballroom C,
Ground Floor
TEXT & CANON
THEME: Text & Canon
9:20 AM-10:00 AM
Jason Sexton (The
Andrews)
How Far Beyond
Ballroom
12:50 PM-1:40 PM
PLENARY SESSION 3: TEXT &
CANON
Daniel B. Wallace (
Seminary)
New Testament Text
Ballroom
1:40 PM-2:30 PM
PLENARY SESSION 3: TEXT &
CANON
Charles E. Hill (Reformed Theological
Seminary)
New Testament Canon
Thursday
Westin
Third Floor
NEW TESTAMENT CANON,
TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND
APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE
Moderator: Mike Kruger (Reformed
Theological Seminary)
2:50 PM-3:30 PM
Darrell L. Bock (
Seminary)
Why Apocryphal Literature Matters for NT
Study: Relevance, Models, and Prospects
—A Look at the Influence of the New
School of Koester-Robinson
3:40 PM-4:20 PM
Charles E. Hill (Reformed Theological
Seminary)
From Codex to Loose-leaf Binder: Some
Recent Trends in Canon Criticism
4:30 PM-5:10 PM
Daniel B. Wallace (
Seminary)
Recent Developments in NT Textual Criticism
and Why They Matter to Evangelicals
5:20 PM-6:00 PM
College)
Summary and Evaluation: Toward an Evangelical
Understanding of NT Canon, Textual
Criticism, and Apocryphal Literature
Friday
Westin Waterplace Ballroom III,
2nd Floor
NEW TESTAMENT CANON, TEXTUAL
CRITICISM, AND APOCRYPHAL
LITERATURE
9:10 AM-9:50 AM
Jang Ryul Lee (
The “Goodness” and “One-ness” of God: A
Study of the Saying in Mark 10:18, “No one
is Good except One, God”
10:00 AM-10:40 AM
Maurice Robinson (Southeastern Baptist
Theological Seminary)
Eclectic Observations regarding the Current
Critical Text
Friday
Hilton Providence Hotel
Rosemoor Ballroom North
SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
THEME: Recent Evangelical Works on
Jesus
Moderator: Leslie Robert Keylock (Evangelical
University and Seminary)
Part I: Recent Popular Works on the
Historical Jesus
9:10 AM-9:25 AM
Grant Osborne (Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School)
Craig Evans’s Fabricating Jesus
9:25 AM-9:40 AM
Daniel B. Wallace (
Seminary)
Ben Witherington’s What Have They Done
with Jesus?
9:40 AM-9:55 AM
David Turner (
Seminary)
Darrell Bock and Daniel Wallace’s Dethroning
Jesus
9:55 AM-10:45 AM
Craig Evans, Ben Witherington III, and
Darrell L. Bock
Responses, Panel Discussion, Questions
Part II: Recent Works on the Life and
Teaching of Jesus
10:45 AM-11:00 AM
Eckhard Schnabel (Trinity Evangelical
Divinity)
Mark Strauss’s Four Portraits, One Jesus:
School
11:00 AM-11:15 AM
Mark Strauss (
Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd’s The Jesus
Legend
11:15 AM-11:30 AM
Graham Twelftree (
Thomas R. Yoder Neufeld’s Recovering
Jesus
11:30 AM-12:20 PM
Mark Strauss, Paul Eddy, and Thomas R.
Yoder Neufeld
Responses, Panel Discussion, Questions
Friday
Westin Washington Room, 3rd Floor
TEXT & CANON
THEME: New Testament Canon
9:10 AM-9:50 AM
Alan Kam-Yau Chan (Chinese Christian
Union Church—North)
Canonical Effect of the Hebrew Bible upon
the Literary Formation of the Prologue in
the Gospel of Mark
Friday
10:50 AM-11:30 AM
Philip Miller (
The Least Orthodox
Preferred: A New Canon for New Testament
Textual Criticism?
11:40 AM-12:20 PM
Samuel Lamerson (Knox Seminary)
Mark 16, Again? Are the Vocabulary and
Monday, 8 September 2008
Dan Wallace and the Byzantine/Majority Text
Pete Williams interviewed Dan Wallace, text critic and professor at Dallas Theological Seminary (http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/03/interview-with-dan-wallace.html). One question which was asked pertained to the Byzantine/Majority Text Type.
Here's the question and comment from the interview:
PJW: You’ve been known for becoming involved in debates about the Majority Text. How would you explain origins of the Byzantine text?
DBW: That’s an excellent question. We don’t have enough concrete evidence to argue decisively about its roots, but the work of Kurt Aland, Gordon Fee, Bart Ehrman, Michael Holmes, and Tim Ralston has helped immeasurably.
Aland did some nice work showing that the first father to use the Byzantine text qua text was Asterius, one of Lucian’s students. Fee and Ehrman have shown that the Byzantine text just didn’t seem to exist anywhere prior to the fourth century, and that its earliest form is decidedly different from later forms. This also was the point of Tim Ralston’s doctoral dissertation at Dallas Seminary....
My best guess on the origins of the Byzantine text—a view that is constantly being shaped—is that it originated in the early fourth century as a consciously edited text, cannibalizing readings from earlier textforms, even to the point of almost obliterating any traces of one of those textforms (the Caesarean).
But then it took on a life of its own, developing into a growing text that had several sub-branches. Two major recensions were done on it, one in the ninth and one in the eleventh century.
Ironically, the text that Hodges and Farstad produced, and the one that Robinson and Pierpont produced, did not, in every respect, represent the majority until the fifteenth century.
Hort’s threefold argument against the Byzantine text is still a good argument that demonstrates the Byzantine text to be secondary, late, and inferior. Although there are a few leaks in the Hortian boat, it’s not enough to sink the ship.
Here's the question and comment from the interview:
PJW: You’ve been known for becoming involved in debates about the Majority Text. How would you explain origins of the Byzantine text?
DBW: That’s an excellent question. We don’t have enough concrete evidence to argue decisively about its roots, but the work of Kurt Aland, Gordon Fee, Bart Ehrman, Michael Holmes, and Tim Ralston has helped immeasurably.
Aland did some nice work showing that the first father to use the Byzantine text qua text was Asterius, one of Lucian’s students. Fee and Ehrman have shown that the Byzantine text just didn’t seem to exist anywhere prior to the fourth century, and that its earliest form is decidedly different from later forms. This also was the point of Tim Ralston’s doctoral dissertation at Dallas Seminary....
My best guess on the origins of the Byzantine text—a view that is constantly being shaped—is that it originated in the early fourth century as a consciously edited text, cannibalizing readings from earlier textforms, even to the point of almost obliterating any traces of one of those textforms (the Caesarean).
But then it took on a life of its own, developing into a growing text that had several sub-branches. Two major recensions were done on it, one in the ninth and one in the eleventh century.
Ironically, the text that Hodges and Farstad produced, and the one that Robinson and Pierpont produced, did not, in every respect, represent the majority until the fifteenth century.
Hort’s threefold argument against the Byzantine text is still a good argument that demonstrates the Byzantine text to be secondary, late, and inferior. Although there are a few leaks in the Hortian boat, it’s not enough to sink the ship.
Sunday, 7 September 2008
Do Matthew and Luke Exemplify Early Scribal Activity?
One attempt to peer into the 150 year darkness between the composition of the Gospels and our earlier extant manuscripts asserts that the authors of Matthew and Luke viewed themselves as merely ordinary scribes reproducing their Marcan examplar, rather than redactors producing new gospels. This, of course, assumes the Synoptic theory that Mark was written first, and that Matthew and Luke "copied" Mark.
This attempt to peer into the darkness also assumes the earliest Christian scribes typically would not have reproduced their exemplars in a careful, exact manner, but rather would have felt free to elaborate and otherwise modify their texts to create something more befitting their own needs and circumstances. This extremely loose approach to the scribal task, according to this theory, has given us the two new Gospels of Matthew and Luke, not to mention the few gospel manuscripts which contain non-canonical stories and sayings.
Proponents of this view probably would attach many caveats to their theory and state things more cautiously. Perhaps they would suggest that the processes involved in producing Matthew and Luke are merely analogous to the freedom with which the earliest scribes perceived in reproducing the earliest Christian writings.
All of this stands opposed to the view that early scribes were very faithful to their exemplars and intended to reproduce them with exacting accuracy, although scribes also felt obliged to correct some readings against one or more other copies at their disposal. It also stands opposed to the notion that the authors of Matthew and Luke were self-consciously producing new and differing accounts of the Jesus story, each having its own unique theological emphases quite distinct from Mark's Gospel.
This issue, then, is yet another issue to be addressed in the text and canon debate.
This attempt to peer into the darkness also assumes the earliest Christian scribes typically would not have reproduced their exemplars in a careful, exact manner, but rather would have felt free to elaborate and otherwise modify their texts to create something more befitting their own needs and circumstances. This extremely loose approach to the scribal task, according to this theory, has given us the two new Gospels of Matthew and Luke, not to mention the few gospel manuscripts which contain non-canonical stories and sayings.
Proponents of this view probably would attach many caveats to their theory and state things more cautiously. Perhaps they would suggest that the processes involved in producing Matthew and Luke are merely analogous to the freedom with which the earliest scribes perceived in reproducing the earliest Christian writings.
All of this stands opposed to the view that early scribes were very faithful to their exemplars and intended to reproduce them with exacting accuracy, although scribes also felt obliged to correct some readings against one or more other copies at their disposal. It also stands opposed to the notion that the authors of Matthew and Luke were self-consciously producing new and differing accounts of the Jesus story, each having its own unique theological emphases quite distinct from Mark's Gospel.
This issue, then, is yet another issue to be addressed in the text and canon debate.
My PhD Proposal: Codex Schoyen 2650 (mae-2)
Versional specialist Tjitze Baarda (Free University, Amsterdam) wrote of the Schøyen codex that it "presents us with a most intriguing version of Matthew, and therefore it should be studied carefully to establish the place which it takes in textual history…. I entertain the hope that this enigmatic text will become the object of a careful investigation in the near future. It might be an appropriate research object for a dissertation of someone who is interested in the relation of the Greek text and the early translations of the New Testament in general and the Coptic versions in particular" (NT 46.3, p.306).
Codex Schøyen 2650, the recently discovered (1999) Coptic manuscript of Matthew's gospel, is extraordinary for its great antiquity (300-350 C.E.), and sensational for its unusual text which may differ from canonical Matthew. Its editor, the late Hans-Martin Schenke, claimed it reflects a Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew derived from a Greek Vorlage unlike any other extant manuscript. His conclusions would have a wide range of consequences for Matthean studies, including the formative development of the gospels.
Some of these conclusions were questioned on methodological grounds by Baarda. While Baarda emphasized that his criticisms could only speak to the small portion of text which he examined (Matt 17:1-9), he urged that a full review of the entire manuscript be undertaken.
Even if some of Schenke's conclusions go too far, ms. Schøyen 2650 remains a potentially important witness to the text of Matthew. The great antiquity of the codex gives it automatic significance. Further, it may reflect one of the earliest attempts to translate Matthew into Coptic, and give indication of the latitude a translator might deem appropriate. Moreover, the publication of ms. Schøyen 2650 necessitates reconsideration of the development of the Coptic versions. A thorough understanding of the Schøyen codex and the place of the Coptic versions will probably become increasingly critical as Egypt continues to be the primary source of new manuscript discoveries.
Therefore, I propose to analyze ms. Schøyen 2650 in the hopes that codicological, papyrological, and textual data will assist in explaining its unusual text and its role in transmission history. This analysis will be achieved by a comparison of ms. Schøyen 2650 with other Coptic versions and manuscripts, and with the translation dynamics of other early versions, with a particular sensitivity to textual variation in the whole manuscript tradition. Ultimately, the project will be designed to make ms. Schøyen 2650 and the Coptic versions more helpful in establishing the text of Matthew, and address implications regarding the formative history of Matthew's gospel.
Codex Schøyen 2650, the recently discovered (1999) Coptic manuscript of Matthew's gospel, is extraordinary for its great antiquity (300-350 C.E.), and sensational for its unusual text which may differ from canonical Matthew. Its editor, the late Hans-Martin Schenke, claimed it reflects a Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew derived from a Greek Vorlage unlike any other extant manuscript. His conclusions would have a wide range of consequences for Matthean studies, including the formative development of the gospels.
Some of these conclusions were questioned on methodological grounds by Baarda. While Baarda emphasized that his criticisms could only speak to the small portion of text which he examined (Matt 17:1-9), he urged that a full review of the entire manuscript be undertaken.
Even if some of Schenke's conclusions go too far, ms. Schøyen 2650 remains a potentially important witness to the text of Matthew. The great antiquity of the codex gives it automatic significance. Further, it may reflect one of the earliest attempts to translate Matthew into Coptic, and give indication of the latitude a translator might deem appropriate. Moreover, the publication of ms. Schøyen 2650 necessitates reconsideration of the development of the Coptic versions. A thorough understanding of the Schøyen codex and the place of the Coptic versions will probably become increasingly critical as Egypt continues to be the primary source of new manuscript discoveries.
Therefore, I propose to analyze ms. Schøyen 2650 in the hopes that codicological, papyrological, and textual data will assist in explaining its unusual text and its role in transmission history. This analysis will be achieved by a comparison of ms. Schøyen 2650 with other Coptic versions and manuscripts, and with the translation dynamics of other early versions, with a particular sensitivity to textual variation in the whole manuscript tradition. Ultimately, the project will be designed to make ms. Schøyen 2650 and the Coptic versions more helpful in establishing the text of Matthew, and address implications regarding the formative history of Matthew's gospel.
The Text of Micah
I don't dabble much in Old Testament Textual Criticism--mostly because I don't know anything about it (except for Wurstein's The Text of the Old Testament which I read 15 years ago and don't remember anything I read.
OT text criticism is a different world altogether from NT textual criticism. Bruce Waltke, an evangelical Old Testament exegete, built his scholarly career after establishing himself as an Old Testament text critic. He did his Harvard PhD on the Samaritan Pentateuch. I studied under him, but never took any of his text criticism classes (same with Fee!).
I'm reading Waltke's commentary on Micah currently. Fantastic read. He lays out some basic text critical data. In the New Testament, we have 5500+ Greek manuscripts and about 15,000+ manuscripts of ancient versions. Nearly every verse of the New Testament shows some variation (mostly minor, but many major) in the tradition.
The situation is completely different in the Old Testament. For Micah, we get the Masoretic text letter for letter from a manuscript called the Leningrad Codex--it is rather late--dating to 1010 A.D. Hebrew manuscripts of Micah prior to this are few and far between. However, found in one of the Dead Sea Scroll caves (Cave 5) was a scroll of Micah now known as Mur 88 or Mur XII. It was written about the time of the Second Jewish Revolt (132 A.D.). Incredibly, as Waltke points out, "[It is] virtually identical with the [Masoretic text = Leningrad Codex = BHS]; its nine [!!!] variants from the 1600 words of [Micah] are incidental." Waltke then lists them--all of which are nothing but minutiae (sometimes less than a jot or tittle).
The other ancient sources which attest to the text of Micah are:
OT text criticism is a different world altogether from NT textual criticism. Bruce Waltke, an evangelical Old Testament exegete, built his scholarly career after establishing himself as an Old Testament text critic. He did his Harvard PhD on the Samaritan Pentateuch. I studied under him, but never took any of his text criticism classes (same with Fee!).
I'm reading Waltke's commentary on Micah currently. Fantastic read. He lays out some basic text critical data. In the New Testament, we have 5500+ Greek manuscripts and about 15,000+ manuscripts of ancient versions. Nearly every verse of the New Testament shows some variation (mostly minor, but many major) in the tradition.
The situation is completely different in the Old Testament. For Micah, we get the Masoretic text letter for letter from a manuscript called the Leningrad Codex--it is rather late--dating to 1010 A.D. Hebrew manuscripts of Micah prior to this are few and far between. However, found in one of the Dead Sea Scroll caves (Cave 5) was a scroll of Micah now known as Mur 88 or Mur XII. It was written about the time of the Second Jewish Revolt (132 A.D.). Incredibly, as Waltke points out, "[It is] virtually identical with the [Masoretic text = Leningrad Codex = BHS]; its nine [!!!] variants from the 1600 words of [Micah] are incidental." Waltke then lists them--all of which are nothing but minutiae (sometimes less than a jot or tittle).
The other ancient sources which attest to the text of Micah are:
- 23 fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls cache, known as 1QpMic
- A disputed number of fragments which comprise the Dead Sea Scrolls document 4QpMic or 4Q168.
- Ancient citations of Micah in the Zadokite Documents
- Septuagint (the Greek translation of Micah--but the text form is different from Masoretic text type)
- A Greek translation--Kaige-Theodotian--closer to the Masoretic text type
- Aquila's Greek translation (c. 130 AD)--even closer to the Masoretic text
- Syriac
- Old Latin
- Latin Vulgate
- Aramaic targums
As can be surmised, our attestation for Micah is extremely thin compared to any New Testament writing--although the Dead Sea Scrolls date earlier than any of our New Testament manuscripts. But what is amazing is how well preserved the Masoretic text is when compared between the 130 A.D. Qumran manuscript and the 11th century Codex Leningrad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
