Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 4

Bercot admits “full disclosure” that John 12:39–40 quotes Isaiah 6:10 closer to the Masoretic even though Jesus in Matthew 13:15 follows the Septuagint; what does that do to the idea that one textual tradition had “exclusive claim” to be God’s Word, and how should that reshape the way Christians talk about “the original text”?

Another way to ask: John quotes Isaiah more like the Hebrew text, but Jesus in Matthew quotes it more like the Septuagint. What does that say about the idea that only one text tradition is “God’s Word,” and how should it change how Christians talk about “the original text”?

Direct Answer Bercot uses John’s Masoretic-like quotation to argue that neither the Septuagint nor the Masoretic had an “exclusive claim” to being God’s Word in the first century, so Christians should speak more carefully about “the original text” as a complex textual situation rather than a single, universally accepted form.

Support from Transcript:

He says “in the interest of full disclosure” John 12:39–40 quotes Isaiah 6:10 “much more similar to the Masoretic text.”
He stresses it’s “not the same event” as Matthew; in John, “Jesus is not the speaker… John is simply quoting.”
He draws a conclusion about the first-century reality: this is “further evidence of the textual situation that existed in the 1st century.”
Even though NT writers “heavily prefer the Septuagint,” they “have no qualms about quoting from the Masoretic Text.”
Therefore, “neither text had the exclusive claim of being God’s Word… It’s a matter of which text is the better of the two for us to use.”

Discussion Follow-ups If the apostles could treat more than one textual form as Scripture, how should that change the tone of debates that insist only one base text is the “real original”?

Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 4 of 10