Textual Conundrum: Ro 9.28

I was meditating and my heart turned to a scripture where the Lord was cutting His work off in righteousness. Not being one to remember scripture and verse I turned to Logos seeking to find this verse of scripture and I encountered marked difficulty. Knowing I cut my teeth on the KJV I was finally able to find that the scripture was Ro 9.28.

I was surprised to find that the Greek texts for this scripture don't match the Bible versions I commonly use. I was able to determine the texts that the modern translations are based on, but when I sought to find the Greek text the KJV is based on I could not find it because there is no introduction or preface to this version in Logos. When I turned to my hard copy there I found no answer either.

So, I turn to all of you. What Greek text/texts is/are the KJV using because it is quite different from the modern texts? And instruct me in finding this information for myself.

KJV:

HCSB:

The textual base for the New Testament [NT] is the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27^th edition, and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 4^th corrected edition.

The Holy Bible: Holman Christian standard version. (2009). Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Beloved Amodeo

Google says that the Textus Receptus is the source text. Is there an apparatus to this text?

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054071#Comment_1054071

I found this:

9:28 συντέμνων {A}

The Textus Receptus, following א D G K P Ψ 33 88 326 614 1241 Byz Lect Old Latin vg syr^h goth arm al, has filled out the quotation from the Septuagint Is 10:22–23 by inserting ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, ὅτι λόγον συντετμημένον. Considered in itself, the absence of these words from 𝔓⁴⁶ א* A B 1739 1881 syr^p cop^sa, eth al could be explained as arising when the eye of a copyist accidentally passed from συντέμνων to συντετμημένον. But it is not credible that Paul, who in ver. 27 does not follow the Septuagint closely, should in ver. 28 have copied verbatim a sentence that is so opaque grammatically.

Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (p. 462). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054077#Comment_1054077

Yet more helpful:

Romans 9:28

WH NU λόγον γὰφ συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνων ποιήσει κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς

“For the Lord will execute his word upon the earth, finishing it and cutting it short.”

𝔓⁴⁶ א* A B 1739 1881 syr cop^,bo

nkjvmg rsv nrsv esv nasb niv tniv neb reb njb nab nlt hcsb net

variant/TR Λογον γαρ συντελων και συντεμων εν δικαιοσυνη οτι λογον συντετμημενον ποιησει κυριος επι της γης

“For the Lord will execute his word in righteousness, because the Lord will make a short matter [or, work] upon the earth.”

א² D F G Ψ 33 Maj syr^h

kjv nkjv njbmg netmg

It is slightly possible that the shorter reading of the text is the result of a scribal error—the eye of a scribe passing from συντεμνων to συντετμημενον, but it is more likely that the variant found in later manuscripts is the result of scribal conformity to the fuller text of the Septuagint (Isa 10:22–23).

Comfort, P. W. (2008). New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations (p. 457). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054071#Comment_1054071

Google says that the Textus Receptus is the source text. Is there an apparatus to this text?

I think you successfully achieved the answer. If you track the english translations, I think the 1895 Revised Cambridge first re-wrote the KJV, using Westcott and Tregalles, tossing the last phrase. I still think we need more old latin support ... the Vulgate went with longer reading, though the Peshitta, the shorter.

In Logos, there's no TR apparatus. The closest would be what came with Hodges Majority Text, but it's very thin. Timing-wise, Tischendorf in 1869 would have come closest and most complete. But not what you'd want.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054081#Comment_1054081

I think you successfully achieved the answer. If you track the english translations, I think the 1895 Revised Cambridge first re-wrote the KJV, using Westcott and Tregalles, tossing the last phrase. I still think we need more old latin support ... the Vulgate went with longer reading, though the Peshitta, the shorter.

In Logos, there's no TR apparatus. The closest would be what came with Hodges Majority Text, but it's very thin. Timing-wise, Tischendorf in 1869 would have come closest and most complete. But not what you'd want.

Thanks, Denise

Your analysis is fascinating. Is there a resource in Logos that discusses the various NT source texts and their authority?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054094#Comment_1054094

I think you successfully achieved the answer. If you track the english translations, I think the 1895 Revised Cambridge first re-wrote the KJV, using Westcott and Tregalles, tossing the last phrase. I still think we need more old latin support ... the Vulgate went with longer reading, though the Peshitta, the shorter.

In Logos, there's no TR apparatus. The closest would be what came with Hodges Majority Text, but it's very thin. Timing-wise, Tischendorf in 1869 would have come closest and most complete. But not what you'd want.

Thanks, Denise

Your analysis is fascinating. Is there a resource in Logos that discusses the various NT source texts and their authority?

Probably Comfort is the best mix of your quandary:

https://www.logos.com/product/7449/encountering-the-manuscripts-an-introduction-to-new-testament-paleography-and-textual-criticism

Querying 'textual criticism' gets some cheaper choices, if you prefer.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054110#Comment_1054110

Some other works (in rough order of complexity):

Greenlee's The Text of the New Testament: From Manuscript to Modern Edition

Porter & Pitts' Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism

Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition

Wasserman & Gurry's A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method

Hixson & Gurry (eds.) Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism

While textual criticism is a fascinating topic, ultimately few have delved into it enough to develop wholly independent conclusions. Most of us would do well simply to look at two or three major translations to form our opinions, if (and big if) the precise wording of any particular verse or passage might affect our doctrine or praxis.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054115#Comment_1054115

Most of us would do well simply to look at two or three major translations to form our opinions,

I think the translations precipitated the question. But comparing translations does provide the canary, and checking is pretty easy with Logos. More often then not, you reach scholarly guessing pretty quick.

David Ames

Romans 9:28
Scrivener 1881 λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνων ἐν δικαιοσυνῃ· ὅτι λόγον συντετμημένον ποιήσει Κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.

The TR Text used by the KJV

BYZ λογον γαρ συντελων και συντεμνων εν δικαιοσυνη οτι λογον συντετμημενον ποιησει κυριος επι της γης

The Majority Text

SBLGNT λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνων ποιήσει κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.
The Critical Text – used by most modern Bibles

Welcome to the wonderful world of Textual Criticism.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

What Greek text/texts is/are the KJV using because it is quite different from the modern texts? And instruct me in finding this information for myself.

In Logos, you can find out the source of the alignment text by viewing resource information. Look for the "Reverse Interlinear" section.

Note that translations of the Hebrew OT are always aligned with the Lexham Hebrew Bible.

This doesn't necessarily answer the question "which text did the translators use?" (sometimes difficult or impossible to answer) but will tell you where the text you see in Logos comes from.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054148#Comment_1054148

Thank you, Denise, Rick, Lee and David you all contributed helpful information. Two book recommendations were especially helpful to me; Denise pointed me to a resource I have in my extensive library, Encountering the Manuscripts. Lee, reminded me about a prepub I had on my Wish List, A New Approach to Textual Criticism.

For those interested in this topic who need a sweeping introduction to the topic. I can't recommend more highly the superb article by Daniel B. Wallace in the LBD: Textual Criticism of the New Testament.

Lee, I agree that for the most part Text Comparison serves us generally. However, when our beloved text is assailed understanding the finer details of scholarly emendations is certainly excusable. Besides when one owns the Mercedes of Bible software and some 15K+ books it's just to rev the engine and enjoy the ride sometimes[8-|]

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054184#Comment_1054184

Lee, I agree that for the most part Text Comparison serves us generally. However, when our beloved text is assailed understanding the finer details of scholarly emendations is certainly excusable. Besides when one owns the Mercedes of Bible software and some 15K+ books it's just to rev the engine and enjoy the ride sometimes

Your spirit is commendable. Enjoy the ride!

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054215#Comment_1054215

It seems that by the third or fourth century, a new text form, the Byzantine

[As found in] Wallace, D. B. (2016). Textual Criticism of the New Testament. In J. D. Barry, D. Bomar, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, D. Mangum, C. Sinclair Wolcott, … W. Widder (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

Others trace the “Byzantine” text all the way back to the first century. [As in copies of copies of copies that were written then]

I have read several of the books on Textual Criticism. [And have searched all in my library for the words "book burning"]

And have noticed that they talk a lot about getting the OLDEST that can be found.

One of the KEY assumptions of Textual Criticism seems to be that all readings that did exist would still be found today in very very old copies. That is that the oldest found must be the first written.

And as they do not seem to like the ones that were most likely to be burnt they do not want to admit that there was a selection being done by the deliberate burning of some texts that were, and still are,unliked.

Also the ground that very very old texts might have been buried in might have made a difference, the dry sand of Egypt or the wet ground of Constantinople. Dry sand preserves while wet ground rots all in it. Nothing on Textual Criticism that I have seen covers the survivability of things buried in different places. [big hole in their assumptions that the oldest would survive until today to be found intact. And one of their keystones was ready to be burnt by the then current owners as useless junk.]

Welcome to the world of Textual Criticism!

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054231#Comment_1054231

Welcome to the world of Textual Criticism!

David, just chatting. I think several of your potshots were true years back, but are slowly receding. The TC logic now recognizes a later mss could be 'older' than a more ancient one (depends on what is being copied). And a mss can be a whole stack of copyings from different earlier mss's .... the copyists were definitely creative! Just my own opinion, but the current research challenge is using AI learning to untangle the mess.

The desert mss's vs the Bosporus mss's logic is arguable ... I'd assume a creator of Alpha Centari could figure to store the mss's in a dry spot, near a future tourist attraction (Napoleon).

But your point on 'early' I agree. Imagine that the earliest pages that sort of look like the Book of Mormon (claimed to be written approx 1835), are actually from 1910. And imagine the earliest quotes by Mormon apostles from the Book of Mormon begin in 1970. And the earliest description of the internals (1950) don't match the Book of Mormon from more modern times. What would you conclude? (I'm paralleling the 2nd century time periods.)

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054235#Comment_1054235

But your point on 'early' I agree. Imagine that the earliest pages that sort of look like the Book of Mormon (claimed to be written approx 1835), are actually from 1910. And imagine the earliest quotes by Mormon apostles from the Book of Mormon begin in 1970. And the earliest description of the internals (1950) don't match the Book of Mormon from more modern times. What would you conclude? (I'm paralleling the 2nd century time periods.)

See https://www.logos.com/product/16021/mormon-studies-collection Although not yet abailble in Faithlife some documents from the Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints before 1900 are still available.

Unfortunately Faithlife was not available in 0100. [[I have problems with S and V but that just might be me only]] And yes, have heard some about new ideas in Textual Criticism but have not seen any in Faithlife (yet).