Hot answers tagged source-criticism
9
There are plenty of web sites that will give you comparatives, however, my broad take on the subject is that the LXX is not generally speaking considered more authoritative than any Hebrew text. The translators were not especially careful (though certainly not sloppy.) The amount of textual variants in the Hebrew text are MUCH smaller than in the Greek, for ...
8
Fraser Orr's answer is excellent and I only hope to supplement his excellent answer with a few thoughts regarding "reliability."
When asking a question like this, it's important to state your purpose. Why are you asking this question? The logic is such that they have reliable uses and applications within their own domains and we need to know the domain in ...
7
user959 has a good answer which tells me that I should probably spend more time reading the translation committee's commentary. Having said that, textual criticism is quite interesting.
While using text criticism, we look at two primary areas of evidence to support a reading: external evidence and internal evidence. With external evidence we evaluate the ...
7
Check Tommy Wasserman's new(ish) critical edition of the text with commentary, it is more recent than NA28 and is certainly more complete with regard to manuscript evidence. His comments will be more detailed than those in UBS, though the comments there are often quite good. It should address the issue quite nicely. I don't have it on hand right now or I ...
7
I accessed "The Wisdom of Ben Sira: portions of the Book Ecclesiasticus from Hebrew manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah collection," edited by S. Schechter and C. Taylor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899. It is accessible here.
Fortunately, this book did have verse 3:17 in it, which follows:
.בני בעשרך התהלך בענוה ותאהב מנותן מתנות
בני ...
6
In response to your question:
I am curious if any scholars have argued that either [ὁ] κύριος ([the] Lord) or ὁ θεός (the God) are the preferred reading of this passage, [...]
Yes.
I have treated Jude 5 (and the whole book) extensively in my monograph on Jude. The book is available here.
You might find this blogpost is a helpful summary of my ...
5
It is often believed that the author of the second book references the first book. This is based on both using otherwise rare words (such as "multiply" in Jude 2 being used in 1 Peter 1:2 and 2 Peter 1:2) and themes ("our common salvation" in Jude 3 and "a faith of the same kind as ours" in 2 Peter 1:2). Whether Jude quotes 2 Peter or 2 Peter uses content ...
5
I think "which is more reliable" is too imprecise a question. There are situations where the Dead Sea scrolls agree with the MT against LXX and vice-versa, and in some cases there's just no way to know which version is older. One more precise question is how often are the Qumran manuscripts close to MT and how often are they close to LXX. Wikipedia says ...
2
This question is hotly debated, and there's no real consensus. There's a very recent monograph on exactly this topic, Goodacre's "Thomas and the gospels". He argues strongly that Thomas is dependent on Matthew and Luke. According to Goodacre in an interview with his publisher, scholars are divided roughly 50/50 on whether Thomas is early and independent ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
