6

Among many (good) arguments against KJV-onlyism, I have heard the following argument:

The idea that “preservation” requires us to have 100% accurate knowledge of the original words of scripture is a standard that was not demanded by Christ or the Apostles.

To bolster this argument, it is suggested that Christ or the NT authors will occasionally base an argument on a textual variant from the OT (probably from the Septuagint) where the original reading actually says something different.

Thus, the argument goes, it is possible to acknowledge that we do not have 100% perfect accuracy in our copies while still holding to a doctrine of preservation... one defined by the belief that the message of the Bible is perfectly clear, even though some meaningful and viable textual variants exist.

I do not remember any specific passages cited where Christ or the NT authors did this sort of thing (made applications based on textual variants). Does anyone know of any?

Improve this question
7
  • 5
    Are you counting quotations of the Septuagint as textual variants? Nearly every NT quotation of the OT follows the Septuagint when there is a discrepancy.
    – bradimus
    Commented Oct 29, 2017 at 0:18
  • You’re asking about textual variants, but what are these variants varying from? In other words, what do you consider the original reading? No original manuscripts exist; all we have are copies, which may contain “variants” themselves. Are you asking for a list of passages where the NT quotes OT scripture in different words than that part of the OT in the same English translation? If so, are you asking about the KJV, or another translation? The original texts of the NT and OT are in two different languages, so it’s impossible to compare the “originals” directly for variants.
    – Zenon
    Commented Oct 29, 2017 at 0:28
  • When the NT quotes the OT, it does so in Greek, while the originals are in Hebrew.
    – Zenon
    Commented Oct 29, 2017 at 0:32
  • 1
    Here's an example that's close to what I'm looking for: 1 Pet. 4:18 ("And if the righteous are scarcely saved...") appears to follow the LXX reading of Prov. 11:31 . However the KJV and modern English translations have Prov. 11:31 as "If the righteous is repaid on earth..." (My knowledge of OT textual criticism is limited, but I assume based on the unanimous reading among English Bibles at Prov 11:31 that "repaid on earth" is a better reading of the original Hebrew than what the LXX has). So is that perhaps an example where Peter's point is based on a textual variant the LXX mistranslated?
    – David White
    Commented Oct 29, 2017 at 0:38
  • The NT always(?) quotes the Septuagint of the OT. And oftentimes the Septuagint differs from the Hebrew Masoretic text. If we believe both NT and OT are inspired then surely the only option is to believe the Septuagint is a more accurate translation of the original than the Masoretic. This is not as unlikely as it may at first sound: the Masorete Jews produced the Masoretic text from about AD 500 to AD 1000. The Hebrew was not so familiar to them; it had been replaced as first language, first by Aramaic and later by Greek. Secondly, the Jews, then as now, had a bias against interpretations
    – Andrew Shanks
    Commented Sep 8 at 17:46

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
6

First, I’d like to give a bit of background on the different OT manuscripts. The OT in English Bibles is almost always based off the Masoretic text and the Dead Sea Scrolls, but some use the Septuagint. The KJV uses the Masoretic. There are some discrepancies between the Septuagint and the Masoretic; nineteen times out of twenty, the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the Masoretic, so for the purposes of this answer I’ll consider them one and the same. The NT, written in Koine Greek, quotes the Septuagint, which is the same language. The Masoretic text is in Hebrew. Some claim that the Masoretic has been doctored, such as Orthodox churches. Others say that because the Septuagint is a translation itself, it is less reliable.

From your question and comment, I would assume you’re looking for discrepancies between the NT quotations and the Masoretic. Most English Bibles use the Masoretic, with the Septuagint being the textual variant you refer to.

This website provides an exhaustive list of instances where the NT quotes the OT. It gives the passages side-by-side from the NT, the Septuagint, and the Masoretic. Some are virtually identical between the texts; others vary rather significantly. The matter of which differences are significant enough to be considered “textual variants” is a matter of opinion, and as such is not a topic for this site. That’s for you to decide.

Note: “AV” stands for “Authorized Version,” which is the British name for the King James Version. That’s the translation used for the NT and Masoretic texts in the table linked to above.

Improve this answer
0
3

I can think of one example.

Matthew 21:16 (KJV)

And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

Psalm 8:2 (KJV/following Masoretic)

Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.

Psalm 8:2 (DRB/following Vul/LXX)

Out of the mouth of infants and of sucklings thou hast perfected praise, because of thy enemies, that thou mayst destroy the enemy and the avenger.

[Emphasis added]

Jesus is quoting the Septuagintic tradition. Not the Hebrew here.

Improve this answer
3

Yes. The author of Acts does exactly this. This answer is lightly adapted from my post on Hermeneutics.

Acts 15 quotes Amos 9 in order to settle a debate about preaching the Christian gospel to non-Jews:

I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; from its ruins I will rebuild it, and I will set it up, so that all other peoples may seek the Lord— even all the Gentiles over whom my name has been called. Acts 15:16-17

This quote comes from the Septuagint Amos, with a few relevant changes. “The Lord” is an addition of Acts.

The Greek and the Hebrew readings of this quoted passage have an interesting relationship. The important section in Amos 9:12 reads:

לְמַעַן יִירְשׁוּ אֶת־שְׁאֵרִית אֱדוֹם
...that they may possess the remnant of Edom...

This section is rendered in the LXX Amos 9:11 (and in Acts with the aforementioned change) as:

ὅπως ἐκζητήσωσιν οἱ κατάλοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων
...so that the remnant of the people might seek.

The cause of this mistranslation appears the be that a Greek speaking translator confused אדום (Edom) with אדם (Adam) meaning "man" or "mankind", probably because of a lack of a mater lectionis. The verb יירשׁו meaning "to possess", was also mistaken as the similar appearing verb ידרשׁו meaning "to seek".

The Hebrew appears to be the better reading than the LXX for two reasons:

  1. An obvious garbling of the verse with a lack of a direct object for εκζητησωσιν ("that they may seek")
  2. The context makes more sense in the Hebrew. The idea that David's restored house reasserting authority will possess the remnant of Edom fits in context. A restored house of David causing nations to seek the Lord does not fit the rest of Amos.
Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .