# The Westminster Shorter/Larger Catechisms and the Critical Text



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 13, 2011)

An excellent point was made by Marrow Man in the thread concerning the ESV and the ending of the Lord's Prayer that I had not contemplated. He did not go this far but it seems to me the logical sense for those who hold to the CT. I have not as of yet done any research where other differences in the TR/CT may have an effect on our Standards. 

Questions 107 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism and 196 of the Westminster Larger Catechism are a part of our Confessions as Presbyterians. If as CT proponents believe that the "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." is not in the Bible the consistent position of the CT should be to petition their denominations to have them removed from the Standards. 

What say you?


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 13, 2011)

A couple of things to note: 1) In the WLC Q. 186, both Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4 are used as proof texts for the Lord's Prayer (Luke 11 does not include the conclusion/doxology, even in the KJV). 2) Even for a CT person, the prayer is still Scriptural (even though not word-for-word); cf. 2 Chronicles 29:11. 3) If we are going to be overly technical in how we read the Confession, then we will all need to take exceptions on 1:8, since it only mentions Hebrew and Greek (and not Aramaic) as being the original Biblical languages.


----------



## Jack K (Mar 13, 2011)

Intent of the writers always must matter. It would be a mistake to insist that the standards assert something the writers never intended to assert.

In this case, there's no reason to believe that by including the last petition in the catechisms the writers intended to assert that only translations based on the TR are proper translations. The issue was not even "on their radar." So it would be wrong for us to say the standards require TR translations. Even though technically one could claim that by using the last petition the standards are saying that petition is Scripture, we ought not to say that the standards therefore have a position on the textual issue. The writers went with the only text they knew. They were making no such assertion.

I don't see why those who don't use TR translations should need to petition for those questions to be removed from the standards. The statements the catechisms _do_ assert in those questions are good. Implications the catechisms clearly don't mean to assert need not concern us. Such things have never been binding.


----------



## MW (Mar 13, 2011)

Jack K said:


> The issue was not even "on their radar."



If the issue was not on their radar it is because the blip had already appeared in their air space and been shot out of the sky. Thomas Cartwright "confuted" the omission in the "Rhemist Translation." Every Puritan catechism included the doxology. Further, the Catechism does not merely treat the doxology as if it were pragmatic to have a form of praise at the end of prayer, but specifically calls it the conclusion of the Lord's prayer, that is, that form of prayer which Christ taught His disciples. Two expositions of the prayer are found among the writings of the divines, Henry Scudder and William Gouge, and both expound it with the utmost confidence that these are the Lord's own words. Another divine, John Lightfoot, who was as educated as any divine in text critical issues, specifically teaches that the Lord used the conclusion in one form of the prayer (Matthew) but not in the other (Luke).


----------



## KMK (Mar 14, 2011)

Here is a previous thread on the subject:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/critical-text-wsc-q-107-a-26864/


----------



## Jack K (Mar 14, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > The issue was not even "on their radar."
> ...



You probably know much more about this issue than I do, so I’m open to correction and am honestly seeking answers.

I thought the use of the particular manuscripts that cause many newer translations to omit that last petition was a rather recent phenomenon. If that’s the case, how could the Standards’ inclusion of the petition be an _intentional_ endorsement of the TR over those other manuscripts?

The issue here is not whether the TR should be the primary text we work from. Personally, I’d like to see more TR/Majority-based translations. But the issue here is whether the Westminster Standards require us to accept the TR version of the Lord’s Prayer. With this in mind, I ask the following…

Is it your position that the Standards require this?

If so… do you believe the writers of the Standards intended to affirm the TR above any other manuscripts that might later gain wide usage or be discovered? If so, why didn’t they state this directly?

Or if they didn’t intend to affirm the TR this way (even if they had no reason to think they needed to), how could it be right for us to insist upon a understanding of the Standards that the writers did not intend? Should we say the Standards bind us in ways the writers did not fully understand or wish to bind us? It seems to me we should not.

These are important questions for protecting our unity under the Standards, don’t you think? We must be careful not to claim that the Standards assert something the writers never actually meant—no matter how right our cause. Anytime we claim the Standards say what they don’t actually mean to say, we give men an excuse to disregard us when we insist they follow the Standards.


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 14, 2011)

It some ways, this reflects the trend toward anachronisms in the study of history, as Carl Trueman mentions in his recent book _Histories and Fallacies_. Different eras dealt with different problems and concerns. We don't expect the WCF to deal specifically with Dispensational theology or definitions of inerrancy, for instance, since these did not arrive on the scene until 3 centuries later (much like the CT). Of course, a case can be easily made from the WCF that would be contra-dispensationalism and pro-inerrancy, but those _specific_ issues were not in the minds of the Divines because they had not risen historically. It would be sort of like arguing that Calvin or Ursinus were anti-sabbatarian because the language they use is not the same as in the WCF; but neither of them were Puritans or had to suffer under James' Book of Sports; historically, these things had not really arisen yet.

However, Richard Tallach made a post on the Surprised by the ESV thread which contained a section from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, where the conclusion was bracketed. I am assuming that this was because there was some dispute about the verse among Anglicans (less that two decades after the WCF). Was this an issue at the time? Rev. Winzer's post above certainly seems to indicate that it was. Thomas Cartwright was in glory before the KJV was even translated; I would be very interested in seeing any links, references, etc. to his thinking on the issue, and what controversies over this matter existed even before the KJV was translated in 1611.


----------



## MW (Mar 14, 2011)

Jack K said:


> I thought the use of the particular manuscripts that cause many newer translations to omit that last petition was a rather recent phenomenon.



While some of the mss. are recent their variant readings are not. Those variant readings have already been rejected.


----------



## MW (Mar 14, 2011)

Marrow Man said:


> which contained a section from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, where the conclusion was bracketed.


 
I just looked up various editions on Google Books and didn't notice an example of this bracketing. Are you able to point to an older version which contains it?


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 14, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> I just looked up various editions on Google Books and didn't notice an example of this bracketing. Are you able to point to an older version which contains it?



Yes sir, and I apologize for not linking it earlier (was in a bit of hurry, If I recall correctly). Here's a link to the thread.

The post in question was # 11, in which Richard posts the following quote from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer:



> Our Father, which art in heaven,
> hallowed be thy name;
> thy kingdom come;
> thy will be done,
> ...



In the manner in which it was posted, it appears to be bracketed. I may be misinterpreting that, however.


----------

