History of Bible Versions - Help

[MGVH]

Thanks for your comments, Greg.
You have correctly identified some of the gross oversimplifications of the chart.
My "(pre-Masoretic) Hebrew Texts" is meant to cover that amalgam of texts that include proto-Masoretic as well as all the other flavors that get filtered down into the SamPent, DSS, and LXX. (That's why I use "textS" instead of "text.") As you note, there are all sorts of strands of which the proto-Masoretic is only one. So, rather than a fixed bar, I should probably use some kind of ragged edge shape to indicate the uncertain and composite nature of this groupings of texts.
My "Hebrew Original" was meant to indicate that somewhere in the hoary past, there was some kind of original autograph, and my chart does not try to define how they eventually end up in the "pre-Masoretic" pile of texts nor how they may have been edited.
My "Greek Original" was an attempt to acknowledge that some books of the LXX were originally written in Greek (2Macc?, WisSol, Esther additions, etc.) Same deal for the "Aramaic Original." (Daniel sections and parts fo Apocrypha?)

So with your comments in mind, I've updated the charts, and hopefully they are a bit more precise.

• History of Biblical Versions.pdf
• History of Versions of the Psalter.pdf

Thanks again for your helpful observations.
Mark

[Dan Phillips]

P.S. I think your use of CE rather than AD is appropriate. These texts are shared by Jews, Samaritans and Christians (at least). “AD” is a Christian confession of faith, which should not be imposed by the powerful from without, upon those for whom it has not come from within.

How does that not amount to a tacit concession of unbelievers' position that the Bible is not one book, that it does not with one voice proclaim the same triune God in an unfolding manner?

Remember: this is a shift. BC and AD have been standard for centuries. Is the other more accurate? As you indicate, no; it is a concession to unbelief.

But I really, really believe that the Bible is as Jesus said, retrospectively and prospectively. So where would my motivation be for bailing on the more truth-oriented convention?

And what was it that made this the "common era"?

Your point about imposition by "the powerful" may contain a grain of truth. But I think you've mis-identified the imposers.

[Greg Crawford]

Tempted as I am to debate your assertions , this is a side issue to the valid questions that Mark has raised about textual groupings and translations. You have taken the discussion into individual preferences of theology; ones which I personally, though a Christian, could not assent to. However, this forum is not really the place to have a theological debate. So let us stay with the matter of textual groupings and translations.

How does that not amount to a tacit concession of unbelievers' position that the Bible is not one book, that it does not with one voice proclaim the same triune God in an unfolding manner?

Remember: this is a shift. BC and AD have been standard for centuries. Is the other more accurate? As you indicate, no; it is a concession to unbelief.

But I really, really believe that the Bible is as Jesus said, retrospectively and prospectively. So where would my motivation be for bailing on the more truth-oriented convention?

And what was it that made this the "common era"?

Your point about imposition by "the powerful" may contain a grain of truth. But I think you've mis-identified the imposers.

[Adelphos]

Tempted as I am to debate your assertions , this is a side issue to the valid questions that Mark has raised about textual groupings and translations. You have taken the discussion into individual preferences of theology; ones which I personally, though a Christian, could not assent to. However, this forum is not really the place to have a theological debate. So let us stay with the matter of textual groupings and translations.

Actually, textual groupings and translations is no more appropriate for the BibleWorks forum than is a theological debate.

Mark's entire proposal, which requested feedback for a bible chart he constucted, though accommodated, was as entirely inappropriate for this forum as any theological debate might be, especially since the construction of a bible chart is as easily a theological issue as any other, especially seeing as how it invovles a great deal of interpretation, much of which is highly disputed.

So if you want to be technical and remain within the guidelines of the forum, take the advice you gave to Dan and apply it to yourself.

[MGVH]

My bad. You are right, Scott. If I had been thinking when I first started this thread, I realize now that I should have posted it in the "Non-BW Discussion Forum."
I wanted some feedback, and I did receive some helpful advice.
BW moderators should either move this thread to that forum, lock it, or delete it.
Thanks. Mark

[Adelphos]

My bad. You are right, Scott. If I had been thinking when I first started this thread, I realize now that I should have posted it in the "Non-BW Discussion Forum."
I wanted some feedback, and I did receive some helpful advice.
BW moderators should either move this thread to that forum, lock it, or delete it.
Thanks. Mark

Personally, I have no problem with you posting here. Technically it should go in the Non-BW discussion area, but I don't see it as a big deal.

My problem is with someone who insist on being a stickler for rules, but who demonstrates a clear bias as to how those rules should be enforced.

For the record, I don't really care about a rigid insistence on these demarcations. I disagree with you on a number of things you've posted, and though no one else may believe this, God is my witness that I have purposely not responded to other educational posts you've displayed here simply because I don't care to debate them.

But I personally have absolutely no problem whatsoever with you posting them here.

[Greg Crawford]

[quote=Adelphos;12233]Actually, textual groupings and translations is no more appropriate for the BibleWorks forum than is a theological debate.

I think a simple test can be applied to determine the appropriateness of a discussion on the BibleWorks forum. Does it deal with the use of the resources supplied as part of BibleWorks? “Textual criticism” and “Manuscripts” are two of the menu items under the “Resources” menu and these areas are being continually expanded by the use of more modules; and databases supplied by scholarly volunteers. There are a number of resources for New Testament textual studies and hopefully there will be more coming on Hebrew Bible textual studies soon. The subject matter of textual criticism is anchored in the study of objective material, namely, the texts and the demonstrable similarities and dissimilarities between them– something that can be shown by using the ever-expanding range of tools in BibleWorks. While scholars will sometimes have differences of opinion, the debate is always anchored in the objective material – the manuscripts themselves – and must constantly return to them.

Contrast this with someone’s beliefs, either concerning their personal faith, or about the labeling of the dating system. If someone “really, really believes” something, I can no more debate that with them, than debate what is their favorite color. What tool in BibleWorks is used in regard to debating such issues? None.

Consider a practical example. The Hebrew Bible is shared by Jews and Christians. I imagine that Jewish people are using BibleWorks for their studies as well, and study of the Hebrew Bible is greatly enhanced by both groups working cooperatively together. How good it is for Christians and Jews to be able to work together in this field! Is a Jewish person who does not adopt the AD dating system, with its implicit confession of Christian Faith, to be bullied for using CE instead of AD? That is hardly the kind of sensitivity and gentleness one would expect from true Christians. The AD dating system has been used for hundreds of years in the West, most probably because of notions of “Christendom”, where State powers ensured that people adhered to particular forms of faith. Dukes and kings exiled people who did not conform even to particular forms of faith within Christianity. So anchored was the AD dating system within the Christian church and its various beliefs that Protestants and Catholics at times had different dates for the same day. Those days have gone and the modern world is a multi-faith one with freedom of religion. In today’s universities, the BCE/CE dating system is the norm. No doubt the change is still shaking some people out of their comfort zone, because it has always been comfortable for Christians to have their faith endorsed by the State in the West. You may wish to debate this, but I come back to my question above. What tool or resource in BibleWorks provides an answer to this question? If the answer is none, then I do not think it is a valid topic for discussion in the forum. On the other hand, if Mark creates a chart which attempts to graphically represent say New Testament textual groupings; we can go to the resources like Comfort and Barrett within BibleWorks to discuss the chart’s value.

[Glenn Weaver]

Hi Mark and others,

This item really is off topic for this forum. But the content is useful for Biblical studies.

Further discussion of the CONTENT should go into the non-BW forum.

However, Mark, why not create a new BW Timeline that includes this material. (One advantage of this is that the user specifies the dating nomenclature. :-> )

Or if not a timeline, why not an HTML Help file that could be included as a user-created module in BibleWorks?

Just some food for thought. Thanks for making this information available to BW users, Mark.

Blessings,
Glenn

[Adelphos]

“Textual criticism” and “Manuscripts” are two of the menu items under the “Resources” menu and these areas are being continually expanded by the use of more modules; and databases supplied by scholarly volunteers. There are a number of resources for New Testament textual studies and hopefully there will be more coming on Hebrew Bible textual studies soon. The subject matter of textual criticism is anchored in the study of objective material, namely, the texts and the demonstrable similarities and dissimilarities between them– something that can be shown by using the ever-expanding range of tools in BibleWorks. While scholars will sometimes have differences of opinion, the debate is always anchored in the objective material – the manuscripts themselves – and must constantly return to them.

Textual criticism discussions are exactly the type of discussions that have been banned from BW forums in the past because such discussions are so highly disputed, and the data from Comfort & Barrett and many other text critical sources in BW are likewise highly disputed. The purpose of the BW forums is to advance the know-how of extracting information from BW and on the actual functionality of the BW program, thereby enhancing the user's ability to extract the information he desires from all of BW's many resources, such as the text critical sources, but the purpose of these forums is NOT on how to intepret the data that has been extracted, and thereby imposing those interpretations on others. Those are two entirely separate disciplines.

How good it is for Christians and Jews to be able to work together in this field! Is a Jewish person who does not adopt the AD dating system, with its implicit confession of Christian Faith, to be bullied for using CE instead of AD? That is hardly the kind of sensitivity and gentleness one would expect from true Christians.

The BW Timeline is delineated in BC and AD, and as of yet nobody has raised a single objection to it.

And your statement about "true Christians" is exactly the opposite of the way "true Christians" act when Jesus Christ is shunted aside in favor of a false peace and a false ecumenism, or a "working together" as you call it, especially since removing all references to Jesus Christ was the actual purpose of abandoning the BC/AD convention in the first place.

Nor is your assumption that someone is being "bullied" when employing the BC or AD convention valild, as it can easily be turned around and asserted that the Christian is being "bullied" when forced to adhere to the BCE/CE system. I wonder if you ever think through your assumptions. Certainly doesn't appear so.

And since YOU brought up the terminology of what makes a true Christian and what doesn't, let me inform you that the Holy Spirit himself testifies that true Christians don't compromise when Jesus Christ is shunted aside, which is just one of the reasons Jesus stated that he didn't come to bring peace on the earth but a sword, and anyone who has actually read and understood the NT would realize that compromise on Jesus Christ is not only not true Christianity, but is in fact anathema in Jesus Christ's eyes.

[Adelphos]

Soooo....how 'bout them Cubs?

Well, Bob, I generally enjoy your posts, but I can see right now that I'm going to have to consider you a serious combatant, for it is the Atlanta Braves that deserve the support of all loyal BW users, and those infernal Cubs, well, they can be... darned!