# WCF 1.8 and CT



## Prufrock

For you Westminster people out there:

If a pastor uses a modern translation in church based on the critical text, do you think this means he should/ought/must claim to take exception to WCF 1.8 and the doctrine of preservation.

In other words, can you confess the WCF without exception and claim that such is God's scripture. I'm curious to see how many come down on each side.

*Edit*
I'm not asking for personal opinions on whether we should use the received text or not; I'm asking whether you think it is confessional.


----------



## sastark

The phrase "kept pure in all ages" in WCF 1.8 is in direct conflict with the principles of modern textual criticism.

I voted "Yes".


----------



## TimV

But the KJV onlies claim that the Septuagint is a gigantic conspiracy based on a forged letter, and it never really existed.


----------



## sastark

TimV said:


> But the KJV onlies claim that the Septuagint is a gigantic conspiracy based on a forged letter, and it never really existed.



(sorry if this was a sarcastic post and I misread it, but...)

The question was not one of KJV-only versus other translations, but which Greek text the translation is based on. Therefore, besides the KJV, the NKJV, the 1599 Geneva, etc would be acceptable translations of *the Received Text*.


----------



## TimV

> The phrase "kept pure in all ages" in WCF 1.8 is in direct conflict with the principles of modern textual criticism.
> 
> I voted "Yes".



But even our enemy Erasmus who compiled the TR had to chose from manuscripts with differing readings. So if "kept pure in all ages" means a continuing exact manuscript, where was it before, say, 1450 AD?


----------



## larryjf

In my experience they don't take exception because of how they interpret the Confession of Faith at this point.

Those whom i've heard interpret the "purity" to be a relative purity, and not a perfect purity. And, quite frankly, i don't see a problem with that interpretation.

I do think that those who believe the ESV is correct in its rendering of the Lord's Prayer should take exception at the Larger Catechism Q#196.


----------



## KMK

larryjf said:


> In my experience they don't take exception because of how they interpret the Confession of Faith at this point.
> 
> Those whom i've heard interpret the "purity" to be a relative purity, and not a perfect purity. And, quite frankly, i don't see a problem with that interpretation.
> 
> I do think that those who believe the ESV is correct in its rendering of the Lord's Prayer should take exception at the Larger Catechism Q#196.



I agree. I think if the Standards as whole are taken into consideration it requires allegience to the TR.

I was once labled 'naive' on this board for holding this view and was told that I didn't understand the Reformed view of the authority of Scripture. I read Ridderbos' "Redemptive History and the NT Scriptures" but am still unclear as to where the naivete of my position lies.

Perhaps Tim, or someone, can help me see the error of my ways.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

This is a very interesting question.

For the TFU guys is there anything comparable to WCF 1.8 in the TFU?


----------



## larryjf

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> This is a very interesting question.
> 
> For the TFU guys is there anything comparable to WCF 1.8 in the TFU?



I'm not a "TFU guy"...but the Heidelberg Catechism Question #128 is similar to the Westminster Larger Catechism Question #196


----------



## Hippo

I doubt that the WCF considered this point in the way envisaged by modern supporters of the TR as logically the point at issue cannot really be considered until you have knowledge of the data concerning textual variants.

I personally think that wheeling out the confessions on this point is to misuse them.


----------



## ADKing

The point at issue is not textual criticism as such. The real issue is that WCF 1.8 very clearly contradicts the assumptions underlying Critical Text theory. I voted "yes".


----------



## Prufrock

Keep in mind, the intent of providential purity is not that there are no variants -- they perfectly acknowledge that there are variants with the received text.

However, acknowledging the variants within the apographs while still using the text as received is different from throwing it out and attempting to reconstruct a text based upon older manuscripts. Yes, Erasmus collated manuscripts: but in doing so, he was paying witness to the state of the text as he received it, acknowledging the variations. This is wholly different from reconstructing the text based upon ancient manuscripts.

-----Added 12/5/2008 at 03:31:38 EST-----

Another way of asking the opening question is: should Puritan Board members who use the ESV, or NASB, or NIV, or any other modern translation have an exception to 1.8 in their "about me" section.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

This sounds like a great article for the Confessional Presbyterian Journal


----------



## TimV

> I agree. I think if the Standards as whole are taken into consideration it requires allegience to the TR.
> 
> I was once labled 'naive' on this board for holding this view and was told that I didn't understand the Reformed view of the authority of Scripture. I read Ridderbos' "Redemptive History and the NT Scriptures" but am still unclear as to where the naivete of my position lies.
> 
> Perhaps Tim, or someone, can help me see the error of my ways.


Why Tim? Tim is a small time contractor from Oceano California with a degree in agriculture.

Widen your perspective. The fact that several of our professional theologians aren't responding to these last KJV threads doesn't mean they don't have opinions. Fred Greco has held posts of very high responsibility in the PCA and I noted yesterday that he purposely noted that several verses he quoted to support his position came from the ESV.

Why don't you pick ten of the full time Elders who you profit from the most, and who are members of churches that have the WCF in their standards. Click on their profiles, then on the place that allows you to see all the posts that they've made. Scroll through them and see how many only quote from the KJV when making points. Then ask yourself if those people have never considered whether they are in violation of their ordination vows by not taking an exception to WCF 1.8.

As for me, my take is that it is clearly a matter of faith, and not reason to believe that the TR somehow is God's exact word over and above any other compliation of texts.

All reasonable people who have looked into the matter know that Christ quoted both from the Hebrew and Septuagint. That settles the matter. Christ quoted from two different compliation of texts that differ much more than the TR does from the W&C compilation.

The KJV onlies know that if Christ quoted from both, they don't have a leg to stand on, and invent a silly mythology that states the Septuagint never existed. And you can't argue with them anymore than you can argue with 9/11 truthers or Obama wasn't born in the USers. They start from a position of elevating all data to the same level of quality, so they can come to any conclusion that they want.


----------



## Prufrock

TimV said:


> As for me, my take is that it is clearly a matter of faith, and not reason to believe that the TR somehow is God's exact word over and above any other compliation of texts.



Absolutely. And that's the question I am asking: is it a part of the faith confessed in the WCF? I'm not even asking if it is true or not. I'm asking if it's a part of the faith found in the confession.

(Also, not whether it is his _exact_ word. All acknowledge variants within the received text. That's not the question at hand.)


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> I agree. I think if the Standards as whole are taken into consideration it requires allegience to the TR.
> 
> I was once labled 'naive' on this board for holding this view and was told that I didn't understand the Reformed view of the authority of Scripture. I read Ridderbos' "Redemptive History and the NT Scriptures" but am still unclear as to where the naivete of my position lies.
> 
> Perhaps Tim, or someone, can help me see the error of my ways.
> 
> 
> 
> Why Tim? Tim is a small time contractor from Oceano California with a degree in agriculture.
> 
> Widen your perspective. The fact that several of our professional theologians aren't responding to these last KJV threads doesn't mean they don't have opinions. Fred Greco has held posts of very high responsibility in the PCA and I noted yesterday that he purposely noted that several verses he quoted to support his position came from the ESV.
> 
> Why don't you pick ten of the full time Elders who you profit from the most, and who are members of churches that have the WCF in their standards. Click on their profiles, then on the place that allows you to see all the posts that they've made. Scroll through them and see how many only quote from the KJV when making points. Then ask yourself if those people have never considered whether they are in violation of their ordination vows by not taking an exception to WCF 1.8.
> 
> As for me, my take is that it is clearly a matter of faith, and not reason to believe that the TR somehow is God's exact word over and above any other compliation of texts.
> 
> All reasonable people who have looked into the matter know that Christ quoted both from the Hebrew and Septuagint. That settles the matter. Christ quoted from two different compliation of texts that differ much more than the TR does from the W&C compilation.
> 
> The KJV onlies know that if Christ quoted from both, they don't have a leg to stand on, and invent a silly mythology that states the Septuagint never existed. And you can't argue with them anymore than you can argue with 9/11 truthers or Obama wasn't born in the USers. They start from a position of elevating all data to the same level of quality, so they can come to any conclusion that they want.
Click to expand...


I meant no offence, Tim. I only singled you out because you were the first in the thread to reply in the negative. I always appreciate your informed input in these KJV threads.

I will take you up on your advice.


----------



## sastark

TimV said:


> As for me, my take is that it is clearly a matter of faith, and not reason to believe that the TR somehow is God's exact word over and above any other compliation of texts.



Let me ask this: Do you know what Christ actually said, word for word, letter for letter, in, say, Matthew 6:13? Is it even possible to know, with certainty anything that Christ or the Apostles ever said or wrote? The assumption behind the Critical Text is that we have to "reconstruct" the true text because of errors introduced through copying. The older the manuscript, the more likely it is correct. However, since we lack the autographa, can we ever, really be sure that we have the correct text? I mean, if 2 copies of the Gospel of Matthew from the 1st century were found tomorrow and they omitted, I don't know, the last 16 verses of Matthew, according to the precepts of textual criticism, we would have to say that for the last 2000 or so years, the church has been in error by including those verses in the Bible. 

So, if you aren't prepared to say that the TR is the exact word of God, are you prepared to say that ANY text or group of texts we have today is the exact word of God? Or do we even have the exact word of God? Is it even possible to have the exact word of God? If we lack the autographa, according to modern textual criticism, who is to say that errors were not introduced in the very first copies of the Gospels and Epistles? And since the autographa are lost (barring a miracle), how can we ever really know what was really written?

The only way we can have any assurance that we know the words spoken by Christ and written by the Apostles is if we believe in the divine preservation of the text. And that idea is at odds with the foundational principles of modern textual criticism.




> All reasonable people who have looked into the matter know that Christ quoted both from the Hebrew and Septuagint. That settles the matter. Christ quoted from two different compliation of texts that differ much more than the TR does from the W&C compilation.



Christ quoted from the original Hebrew and a translation of the Hebrew. How does that settle the issue? Christ's quotation of a translation is not an affirmation of the correctness of that translation. If anything, it assures us that we have the right to translate from the original languages to our own.


----------



## fredtgreco

sastark said:


> Christ quoted from the original Hebrew and a translation of the Hebrew. How does that settle the issue? Christ's quotation of a translation is not an affirmation of the correctness of that translation. If anything, it assures us that we have the right to translate from the original languages to our own.



The much bigger issue is what you do with the text like Hebrews 10:%, which clearly follows the LXX text _instead of_ the Hebrew text.


----------



## Grymir

TimV said:


> All reasonable people who have looked into the matter know that Christ quoted both from the Hebrew and Septuagint. That settles the matter. Christ quoted from two different compliation of texts that differ much more than the TR does from the W&C compilation.
> 
> The KJV onlies know that if Christ quoted from both, they don't have a leg to stand on, and invent a silly mythology that states the Septuagint never existed. And you can't argue with them anymore than you can argue with 9/11 truthers or Obama wasn't born in the USers. They start from a position of elevating all data to the same level of quality, so they can come to any conclusion that they want.




Hardly. You constantly mis-represent the KJV position by citing Gail Riplinger and the other weirdo's views. That isn't even close to the real reason we use the KJV. The Septuagint is real. Deal with it. And quite mis-representing and slandering us KJV people. Please. - Grymir


----------



## TimV

> However, since we lack the autographa, can we ever, really be sure that we have the correct text?



It all comes down to believing that our enemy Erasmus was somehow directly inspired by God when he chose which readings of different, non identical texts to include in the TR.

I'll try to answer your questions, but first I need you to tell me exactly where



> So, if you aren't prepared to say that the TR is the exact word of God, are you prepared to say that ANY text or group of texts we have today is the exact word of God?



this exact Word of God was in AD1450.

For me, it's not a problem because I can hold that God could have preserved His Word even if I don't know exactly which of two differently pronounced place names are the correct, or even if I don't know if Tobit is profitable for preaching and instruction (but not doctrine) or the specific details about who stirred the waters at a pool.

I guarantee you that if you set a standard of 66 Books exactly as written in the TR for all church history the moment you start studying the issue in-depth, you're setting yourself up for a big disappointment, and possibly a crises of faith.

-----Added 12/5/2008 at 05:40:05 EST-----



> Hardly. You constantly mis-represent the KJV position by citing Gail Riplinger and the other weirdo's views. That isn't even close to the real reason we use the KJV. The Septuagint is real. Deal with it. And quite mis-representing and slandering us KJV people. Please. - Grymir



Nice try, but I've spent hours debating the issue right here, with people who still hold to that position. People who have posted here on this very subject within the last few days.


----------



## sastark

fredtgreco said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ quoted from the original Hebrew and a translation of the Hebrew. How does that settle the issue? Christ's quotation of a translation is not an affirmation of the correctness of that translation. If anything, it assures us that we have the right to translate from the original languages to our own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The much bigger issue is what you do with the text like Hebrews 10:%, which clearly follows the LXX text _instead of_ the Hebrew text.
Click to expand...


(I'm assuming you meant Hebrews 10:5, since the '%' is above the '5' on the keyboard.)

Again, I fail to see how quoting from a translation is a problem. That is what the author of Hebrews is doing in this passage. 

Am I missing your point (honestly asking)?

-----Added 12/5/2008 at 05:54:08 EST-----



TimV said:


> However, since we lack the autographa, can we ever, really be sure that we have the correct text?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It all comes down to believing that our enemy Erasmus was somehow directly inspired by God when he chose which readings of different, non identical texts to include in the TR.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but no, it does not come down to a question concerning Erasmus (or Beza for that matter). It comes down to the question of: Can we know with certainty the exact words written by the original authors of the New Testament. Modern Textual Criticism says 'No'. The WCF says 'Yes'. In reference to the original post, if a pastor or elder holds to the principles of modern textual criticism, he ought to state as much, as that belief is an exception to the standards.


----------



## fredtgreco

sastark said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ quoted from the original Hebrew and a translation of the Hebrew. How does that settle the issue? Christ's quotation of a translation is not an affirmation of the correctness of that translation. If anything, it assures us that we have the right to translate from the original languages to our own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The much bigger issue is what you do with the text like Hebrews 10:%, which clearly follows the LXX text _instead of_ the Hebrew text.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (I'm assuming you meant Hebrews 10:5, since the '%' is above the '5' on the keyboard.)
> 
> Again, I fail to see how quoting from a translation is a problem. That is what the author of Hebrews is doing in this passage.
> 
> Am I missing your point (honestly asking)?
Click to expand...


I think you are. (Sorry about the "%" )

This is not a matter of translation. The text is actually very different. The LXX is different in substance (not translation) than the Hebrew. Compare Ps. 40:6 in Hebrew (and various English translations following the Masoric text)ESV Psalm 40:6 In sacrifice and offering you have not delighted, but *you have given me an open ear*. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required.

WTT Psalm 40:7 [FONT=&quot]זֶבַח וּמִנְחָה לֹֽא־חָפַצְתָּ אָזְנַיִם כָּרִיתָ לִּ֑י עוֹלָה וַחֲטָאָה לֹא שָׁאָֽלְתָּ׃ [/FONT]​[FONT=&quot] 
[/FONT]
(my ears you have dug)


NAU Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; *My ears You have opened; *Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required.

KJG Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; *mine ears hast thou opened: *burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.​With the LXX and a translation of it:BGT Psalm 39:7θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν οὐκ ἠθέλησας *ὠτία δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι* ὁλοκαύτωμα καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας οὐκ ᾔτησας

LXE Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; *but a body hast thou prepared me*: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require.​Now look at Hebrews 10:5, which is quoting Psalm 40, in the Greek and English:
ESV Hebrews 10:5 ¶ Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but *a body have you prepared for me*;

NAU Hebrews 10:5 ¶ Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, *BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME;*

BGT Hebrews 10:5[FONT=&quot] ¶[/FONT] Διὸ εἰσερχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον λέγει· θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν οὐκ ἠθέλησας, *σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι·*​


----------



## Prufrock

sastark said:


> It comes down to the question of: Can we know with certainty the exact words written by the original authors of the New Testament. Modern Textual Criticism says 'No'. The WCF says 'Yes'.



Keep in mind that the reformers and our old divines certainly allowed that there are non-essential variants within the text. It's not quite about knowing every single word with certainty. The difference is methodology. Do we start with the text as we have received it handed down (indeed, admitting the variants therein), or do we reject this text and attempt to reconstruct one.

-----Added 12/5/2008 at 06:29:21 EST-----

But, returning to the opening post if we may: the question is a very practical one -- do those who use a translation based upon the critical text need to claim exception to 1.8 based upon authorial intent.

I'm leaning to yes. I'm still interested in more answers.

-----Added 12/5/2008 at 06:47:53 EST-----

I would also add that I don't ask this question because of the differences between the texts themselves: so much ink has been spilled over so little and insignificant difference. I am asking about the theological presuppositions involved, and whether _those_ are a part of the confession.


----------



## MW

The key word of WCF 1:8 is "authentical." This 17th century council claims that the church possesses the "authentic text" of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures through the singular providence of God preserving it pure in all ages. Given this claim, we are left with one of two choices: either the text they used is the "authentic text" or their claim was false. I don't think the acceptance of their claim necessarily binds one to a strict TR-only position. The writings of the Westminster men show an openness to other readings where they shed light on the meaning of God's Word and do not prejudice the faith once delivered. But at the very least, the claim of the WCF does require an acceptance of the reformation text as the authoritative court of appeal.


----------



## Prufrock

armourbearer said:


> The key word of WCF 1:8 is "authentical." This 17th century council claims that the church possesses the "authentic text" of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures through the singular providence of God preserving it pure in all ages. Given this claim, we are left with one of two choices: either the text they used is the "authentic text" or their claim was false. I don't think the acceptance of their claim necessarily binds one to a strict TR-only position. The writings of the Westminster men show an openness to other readings where they shed light on the meaning of God's Word and do not prejudice the faith once delivered. But at the very least, the claim of the WCF does require an acceptance of the reformation text as the authoritative court of appeal.



Can you specify a bit please?

Do you just mean that, confessionally, alternative readings from outside the received text can be used to help explain and open a passage in the "authentic text," but are not authoritative? I think this is the drift of your post, but I'm not sure.

Thus, when a pastor reads scripture before the church, can he (keeping with the confession) read the non-received text reading _as scripture_?


----------



## MW

On the LXX reading of Ps. 40:6, allegedly quoted in Heb. 10:5, it is somewhat noteworthy that the 17th century John Owen and the 21st century Commentary on the NT use of the OT by Beale and Carson happen to agree as to the scribal correction of certain Greek texts which force the mss. of Ps. 40:5 to conform to the apostle's citation.

-----Added 12/5/2008 at 07:06:07 EST-----



Prufrock said:


> Do you just mean that, confessionally, alternative readings from outside the received text can be used to help explain and open a passage in the "authentic text," but are not authoritative? I think this is the drift of your post, but I'm not sure.



Yes, that is the point I was making.



Prufrock said:


> Thus, when a pastor reads scripture before the church, can he (keeping with the confession) read the non-received text reading _as scripture_?



No, that would change the constitutional document; but he might find that a variant reading sheds a little light on the constitutional document, and therefore give an explanation of it in terms of the variant. Not all changes are corruptions as to the meaning of the text. One can imagine a later Greek scribe notating the text so as to explain it in terms of his time and culture.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

For the immature among us (primarily me) can you point us to any books/articles to read more on this subject Rev. Winzer? 

(btw my TFU question from above was more focused on this subject)...


----------



## Prufrock

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> This is a very interesting question.
> 
> For the TFU guys is there anything comparable to WCF 1.8 in the TFU?



If this doctrine is not plainly taught there, then all the critical text people can adopt the TFU and the received text people can adopt the WCF and since we can't look down on either of these confessions--problem solved permanently.

There, we just singlehandedly solved a great controversy!

Really though, while I'm sure most continentals would certainly have affirmed WCF 1.8, I don't think its parallel is in the Belgic, unless I've missed something implicit therein.


----------



## TimV

> Thus, when a pastor reads scripture before the church, can he (keeping with the confession) read the non-received text reading as scripture?
> 
> No, that would change the constitutional document



That is a very, very narrow interpretation of WCF 1.8



> The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical



There was no TR before Erasmus put it together, and the WCF language interprets itself by saying the Word was kept pure in *all ages*. So in, say, 1450 to subscribe to WCF 1.8 one would have to say the TR was in existence, if one were to interpret the Confession the way you do.

It's much more natural, logical and sensible to interpret WCF 1.8 in a much broader sense.



> do those who use a translation based upon the critical text need to claim exception to 1.8 based upon authorial intent.
> 
> I'm leaning to yes. I'm still interested in more answers.


Do you have any idea at all of what you are accusing the majority of Elders both here and in our denomination of doing?


----------



## fredtgreco

armourbearer said:


> On the LXX reading of Ps. 40:6, allegedly quoted in Heb. 10:5, it is somewhat noteworthy that the 17th century John Owen and the 21st century Commentary on the NT use of the OT by Beale and Carson happen to agree as to the scribal correction of certain Greek texts which force the mss. of Ps. 40:5 to conform to the apostle's citation.




Matthew,

I don't follow you here. I see that there is a slight difference between the LXX of Ps. 40:6 and the Greek of Hebrews 10:5, and I can certainly see that a correction of the LXX manuscripts would make that more conforming. In any event, even the slight difference as it stands does not really bother me - I think it does not cast doubt on authenticity.

My point was that the Hebrews citation is clearly different from the Hebrew. Can you clarify?


----------



## Prufrock

> Do you have any idea at all of what you are accusing the majority of Elders both here and in our denomination of doing?



Um, I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything. I'm making honest inquiry into the intent of the authors of the confession, and also whether our practice is in accord with that.



> There was no TR before Erasmus put it together, and the WCF language interprets itself by saying the Word was kept pure in all ages. So in, say, 1450 to subscribe to WCF 1.8 one would have to say the TR was in existence, if one were to interpret the Confession the way you do.



And also, that's not _at all_ what I have implied. When I say "the received text" I don't mean a document that Erasmus put together. I mean the text as it has been received. There were scores of Greek New Testaments in the Greek church before 1450 -- that was the text as it was received.

-----Added 12/5/2008 at 07:33:38 EST-----

And again, as I have stated multiple times right from the beginning of this thread, I am not asking what teaching people think is right regarding this: I'm asking about the intent of the confession.

You have every right to disagree with the conclusion; I didn't intend, however, for this thread to be about the validity of the TR.


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> I don't follow you here. I see that there is a slight difference between the LXX of Ps. 40:6 and the Greek of Hebrews 10:5, and I can certainly see that a correction of the LXX manuscripts would make that more conforming. In any event, even the slight difference as it stands does not really bother me - I think it does not cast doubt on authenticity.
> 
> My point was that the Hebrews citation is clearly different from the Hebrew. Can you clarify?



Given the differences between the so-called LXX and Heb. 10:5, and the scribal modification of the key terms, there is no evidence that Heb. 10:5 quotes from a pre-Christian Greek translation of Ps. 40:6.

We should accredit the Greek mss. with attempting to make a serious translation of the Hebrew, and allow NT writers to reference the Hebrew Scriptures without requiring modern standards of citation.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Very interesting. Any books you can recommend Rev. Winzer?


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> So in, say, 1450 to subscribe to WCF 1.8 one would have to say the TR was in existence, if one were to interpret the Confession the way you do.



The Confession is a constitutional document. To interpret it we must read it in the historical context in which it was framed. Whatever one thinks of the TR, the divines claimed to possess the authentic text. Their claim was either correct or incorrect. Let's deal with the document honestly on its own merits; if one disagrees with it, he should do so candidly rather than attempt to modify the document to suit a fluid tradition.

-----Added 12/5/2008 at 07:50:20 EST-----



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Very interesting. Any books you can recommend Rev. Winzer?



On the LXX or the text-critical question? I've mentioned Owen and Beale/Carson on the quotation issue. On the text-critical question I highly recommend Dabney's article in vol. 1 of his Discussions, entitled the Doctrinal Various Readings of the NT Greek, followed by Burgon's Revision Revised, neither of whom were TR-only men but understood the importance of a fixed textual tradition. On the TFU, one of the brethren from the continental tradition churches may be able to shed light on the constiutional value of the scripture texts appended to the Belgic Confession.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Text-Critical questions and 1.8.


----------



## TimV

> When I say "the received text" I don't mean a document that Erasmus put together. I mean the text as it has been received. There were scores of Greek New Testaments in the Greek church before 1450 -- that was the text as it was received.



You should mean that. TR is Latin for Received Text, and whether you are aware of it or not, that's what you are referring to. I know you haven't been looking into this for long, so I don't accuse you of trickiness, but what you are in effect doing is the same as the FV people who use the word election and mean those who have been baptised into a church. You are making up your own personal meaning and thereby confusing the issue.


----------



## Prufrock

Actually, textual criticism is something I've been doing for a long time. And if you will notice, in all my first posts, I never used the words Textus Receptus (though I realize I did in the title of the poll). 

I'm also not making up any meanings for words. I'm sorry if there has been confusion.

-----Added 12/5/2008 at 08:32:26 EST-----

The fact that the TR _is_ our received text was kind of beside my point. There was a received text of the church before Erasmus put together _the_ Received Text. The New Testament was passed down in generation of generation of miniscules, being preserved as the received text of the church, and was formally pronounced the Received Text by our reformed church.


----------



## TimV

> The Confession is a constitutional document. To interpret it we must read it in the historical context in which it was framed.


True, and the operative phrase is *kept pure in all ages.*



> Whatever one thinks of the TR, the divines claimed to possess the authentic text. Their claim was either correct or incorrect.



The other possibility is that you are missing what the Divines said. They didn't say a word about the TR, they said



> The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical



And that means before the TR, right? So the natural way of reading this is general; that God's has preserved His Word. The fact that some mms don't agree with each other means nothing, nor does it mean that somehow or another the TR was some sort of apex of Scriptural Revelation that the lack thereof meant those that didn't have the TR didn't have the Word.

If what you say is true, and the Divines meant that the TR is exclusively the Word of God, then the Church didn't have the Word for the first 15 centuries.


----------



## MW

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Text-Critical questions and 1.8.



The background of 1:8 is the reformed scholastic context and this is well assessed by Muller in PRRD 2. One might also reference "the Transmission of Scripture" in essay III of Warfield's Westminster Assembly and its Work. His comment is well worth attending to: "had their lot been cast in our day it is possible that many of them might have been of the school of Scrivener and Burgon, rather than of that of Westcott and Hort." (p. 239.)


----------



## TimV

_ There was a received text of the church before Erasmus put together the Received Text. The New Testament was passed down in generation of generation of miniscules, being preserved as the received text of the church, and was formally pronounced the Received Text by our reformed church. _

Before I withdraw my assumption of you not being tricky, could you please point me to this lower case received text? And tell me (please) yes or no, is it the same as the upper case Received Text that the rest of us assumed you were talking about?


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> If what you say is true, and the Divines meant that the TR is exclusively the Word of God, then the Church didn't have the Word for the first 15 centuries.



First, you keep drawing consequences which are posed at the confession's claim, and you suggest the claim can't be their intention because then these consequences would be true. I deny the consequences; but even if they were accepted, one does not treat a fallible document as if all consequences drawn from it are proportionate and concordant with absolute truth. The Confession might speak truly in its context without necessarily addressing other contextual issues which might arise from their statements.

Secondly, who says "the church" did not have this text for the first fifteen centuries, and what is the definition of "the church?" It must be noted that WCF 1:8 only says that "the church" is finally to appeal to this authentic and preserved text; did the church of the first fifteen centuries possess such a text that it could appeal to? Of course it did; the mss. bear witness to this fact.


----------



## Prufrock

TimV said:


> _ There was a received text of the church before Erasmus put together the Received Text. The New Testament was passed down in generation of generation of miniscules, being preserved as the received text of the church, and was formally pronounced the Received Text by our reformed church. _
> 
> Before I withdraw my assumption of you not being tricky, could you please point me to this lower case received text? And tell me (please) yes or no, is it the same as the upper case Received Text that the rest of us assumed you were talking about?



Tim, all I'm saying is that Erasmus didn't pull the TR out of thin air; it is called the TR because it literally is the text of scripture that the church has received, that has been handed down. It's not monolithic -- there are variants -- there is no _one_ manuscript I can point you to: It just doesn't exist. But there are many, many similar manuscripts. The TR is a collation of these, bearing witness to the overall state of the text that the church has passed down, and admitting of the variants contained therein. This is not a crazy doctrine.

Keep in mind, I've always gladly and willingly used the Nestle-Aland text. I have no problems with the results of the critical text (*Edit: *though, indeed, I have begun questioning certain things of late) I do _question_ the methodology of it. Keep in mind, TR people can be all in favor of textual criticism, and I think that they should be. The question is the starting point and method. Do we 1.) Trust God's providence in preserving scripture and upon that basis start with the text as it has been passed down; or, 2.) Do we rely upon our reason and thus reject the text as it has been passed down, even if the result will be the same, and instead attempt to reconstruct the text based upon our rational abilities.

There is, indeed, a vast difference between these methodologies which cannot be overlooked. 

But, back to your original question, I'm certainly not being tricky, as I hope my first paragraph can convince you.

I do apologize, I had not intended to enter into this debate with you. You have certainly given more than a required answer to my opening question, and I thank you for taking the time to advocate your position.


----------



## MW

Further on bibliographic references on WCF 1:8, it was remiss of me not to mention an article seminal to my own thinking, which is Theodore Letis' "Edward Freer Hills' Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesisatical Text," in Journal of Christian Reconstruction 12 (1989), 2:21ff. This article shows that for the reformed tradition the "authentical text" is in fact a canonical issue.


----------



## jaybird0827

sastark said:


> The phrase "kept pure in all ages" in WCF 1.8 is in direct conflict with the principles of modern textual criticism.
> 
> I voted "Yes".


 
Well said, Mr. Seth.



-----Added 12/6/2008 at 09:10:23 EST-----



larryjf said:


> ...I do think that those who believe the ESV is correct in its rendering of the Lord's Prayer should take exception at the Larger Catechism Q#196.


 
Nice!!!


----------



## TimV

> Secondly, who says "the church" did not have this text for the first fifteen centuries, and what is the definition of "the church?" It must be noted that WCF 1:8 only says that "the church" is finally to appeal to this authentic and preserved text; did the church of the first fifteen centuries possess such a text that it could appeal to? Of course it did; the mss. bear witness to this fact.



I believe strongly the Church did have this text. I am quite sure it was existent during Augustine's day, although not written down perfectly on one scroll, parchment or sheaf of paper. I feel certain that Augustine had 95% at least of what we now call the TR. I feel certain that Augustine had available something very close to what most of us use, whether based on the TR or W&H's text. He had parts that were missing, and could have been on manuscripts in Iberia. He had parts that were added, but weren't in some texts in Anatolia, and small differences in names that were correct in some texts in the Peloponnese.

Are we on the same page Rev. Winzer? Because I can't help but believe the Divines were learned enough not to confuse the TR with something vague and nebulous that they would have referred to as a lower case tr. Or to think the TR was available on one manuscript that anyone could touch before Erasmus. As tempting and convenient it would be to believe otherwise.

-----Added 12/6/2008 at 10:10:32 EST-----



> Tim, *all I'm saying is that Erasmus didn't pull the TR out of thin air*; it is called the TR because it literally is the text of scripture that the church has received, that has been handed down. It's not monolithic -- there are variants -- *there is no one manuscript I can point you to: It just doesn't exist.* But there are many, many similar manuscripts. The TR is a collation of these, bearing witness to the overall state of the text that the church has passed down, *and admitting of the variants contained therein. This is not a crazy doctrine*.



1: Was the underlying text of the e.g. ESV pulled out of thin air?

2: Please think about the ramifications of a text containing what you believe the exact Word of God not being in existence before Erasmus, the great enemy of the Reformation. Think about this for a day or so, then go back and read WCF 1.8.

3: Is it crazy to believe that Erasmus wasn't directly inspired by God, and that others have the same right as Erasmus to collate varying mss? Or did Inspiration stop in 1516? 

I see from your poll that a majority believe that the overwhelming number of Elders who are member of this board who belong to churches that require making exceptions to the WCF are in violation of their ordination vows.

From the high level of scholarship shown on this thread so far, I'm sure they are being driven to burlap and pulling out of hair.


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> Further on bibliographic references on WCF 1:8, it was remiss of me not to mention an article seminal to my own thinking, which is Theodore Letis' "Edward Freer Hills' Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesisatical Text," in Journal of Christian Reconstruction 12 (1989), 2:21ff. This article shows that for the reformed tradition the "authentical text" is in fact a canonical issue.



I found it for $9.10 here: https://www.chalcedonstore.com/xcart/product.php?productid=2189&cat=34&page=1

Does anyone know if it is online?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Tim, cut the sarcasm. All, respond to the substance of posts and ignore extraneous verbiage or this thread is headed for derailment.




TimV said:


> From the high level of scholarship shown on this thread so far, I'm sure they are being driven to burlap and pulling out of hair.


----------



## Prufrock

TimV said:


> Secondly, who says "the church" did not have this text for the first fifteen centuries, and what is the definition of "the church?" It must be noted that WCF 1:8 only says that "the church" is finally to appeal to this authentic and preserved text; did the church of the first fifteen centuries possess such a text that it could appeal to? Of course it did; the mss. bear witness to this fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe strongly the Church did have this text. I am quite sure it was existent during Augustine's day, although not written down perfectly on one scroll, parchment or sheaf of paper. I feel certain that Augustine had 95% at least of what we now call the TR. I feel certain that Augustine had available something very close to what most of us use, whether based on the TR or W&H's text. He had parts that were missing, and could have been on manuscripts in Iberia. He had parts that were added, but weren't in some texts in Anatolia, and small differences in names that were correct in some texts in the Peloponnese.
> 
> Are we on the same page Rev. Winzer? Because I can't help but believe the Divines were learned enough not to confuse the TR with something vague and nebulous that they would have referred to as a lower case tr. Or to think the TR was available on one manuscript that anyone could touch before Erasmus. As tempting and convenient it would be to believe otherwise.
> 
> -----Added 12/6/2008 at 10:10:32 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim, *all I'm saying is that Erasmus didn't pull the TR out of thin air*; it is called the TR because it literally is the text of scripture that the church has received, that has been handed down. It's not monolithic -- there are variants -- *there is no one manuscript I can point you to: It just doesn't exist.* But there are many, many similar manuscripts. The TR is a collation of these, bearing witness to the overall state of the text that the church has passed down, *and admitting of the variants contained therein. This is not a crazy doctrine*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1: Was the underlying text of the e.g. ESV pulled out of thin air?
> 
> 2: Please think about the ramifications of a text containing what you believe the exact Word of God not being in existence before Erasmus, the great enemy of the Reformation. Think about this for a day or so, then go back and read WCF 1.8.
> 
> 3: Is it crazy to believe that Erasmus wasn't directly inspired by God, and that others have the same right as Erasmus to collate varying mss? Or did Inspiration stop in 1516?
> 
> I see from your poll that a majority believe that the overwhelming number of Elders who are member of this board who belong to churches that require making exceptions to the WCF are in violation of their ordination vows.
> 
> From the high level of scholarship shown on this thread so far, I'm sure they are being driven to burlap and pulling out of hair.
Click to expand...


Tim, I'm sorry, but I'm going to withdraw from this thread. You have consistently taken what has been said and twisted it, and put things in my mouth that I have not said. I will give you quick answers to your questions first.

1.) In a sense, yes. Objectively speaking, there is a difference in the way the texts are formed. The one is based upon the way in which the text has been received; the other discards this as a viable, historical, rational method of knowing the original text, and seeks to reconstruct it by rational means. This is just different. Whether God is providentially controlling the assembling of the CT is another issue, and one that is outside the scope of the current discussion.

2.) Please stop referring to Erasmus as "the great enemy." Regardless of our thoughts about him, they are here irrelevant and only serve a rhetorical and uncharitable purpose to make the opposing argument look weaker. Tim, no one has said that there is one text that contains the exact word of God. Again, I don't know how many times I can say this in every post: there are variants in the TR, in the received text of the church. It has variants. There are variants. It is not uniform. It contains variants. There was indeed a text received by the church before the WCF. It is irrelevant to bring that up, however. What matters is that the drafters were attesting that _this_, the Textus Receptus (with its variants), was the text they received. The question that you're asking is roughly akin to "How can we believe in Sola Scriptura since there was not always scripture?" The fact that Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, etc., did not exist yet in 1450 or in 800 does not mean the WCF states they did not have the word of God back then. That simply and absolutely does not follow.

3.) Again, no one said that. Erasmus was not inspired. I don't know why you felt a need to allude to the fact that anyone thinks that. Also, textual criticism is not out -- again, we acknowledge variants that are sifted through. As I have stated many times, the problem lies in methodology, not in ongoing work. New Greek manuscripts haven't been created or written since then -- the days of doing that passed centuries ago. So when the WCF testifies to the authority of the providentially preserved apographs, to what is it referring?

Again, I am not ignorant of ancient manuscripts of which the reformers were ignorant. I have been immersed in the world of uncials and miniscules, Syriacs and Old latins, lectionaries and fathers, etc. I have been torn over certain issues -- the benefits and the cons. I am not trying to push anything: I am making inquiry, and at the same time trying to recognize certain, historical facts of the confession.

Your statement about people believing others are in violation of their ordination vows is also troubling, as though that is unique to this topic. That arises _any time_ there is any difference in thought over the meaning of the confession, whether it be with respect to Exclusive Psalmody, observation of feast days such as Christmas, even something as esoteric as Republication. I do not see the necessity of bringing up such a statement. I apologize also for the lack of scholarship.

Thank you again for your interaction on this; and at the same time, I will now respectfully withdraw from the conversation.

-----Added 12/6/2008 at 11:01:55 EST-----

Also, mods, I just reread Mr. Coldwell's post. Sorry if I responded too much to extraneous verbiage in my last response.

-----Added 12/6/2008 at 11:27:47 EST-----

Sorry, Tim, to throw one last comment on here that I forgot to mention before. You keep highlighting the phrase "kept pure in all ages." That is precisely the question I am driving at. Remember, _kept pure_ does not mean free from all variants. To use the TR seems to attest to this -- God has kept it pure. The Critical Text seems to suggest the exact opposite: it has _not_ been kept pure; therefore, we must reconstruct the original by using older copies _from before the text lost its overall purity_.

But...the question of the poll is not as to whether we support the mission of the Critical Text, but whether _use_ of it in the pulpit (not for explanatory help, but as calling it the Word of God, the Authoritative Scripture) constitutes an abandonment of 1.8 This is the question of which I am unsure, and why I asked the poll question (and why I voted, "I'm not sure.")


----------



## Hippo

This is also quite a sensative issue as logically if the TR is confessionally required anyone who prefers a variant from the AV could be thrown off this board.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Not at all. Discuss the issue freely (yet inoffensively). Let the PB management worry about what are and are not confessional requirements for staying on the board.


Hippo said:


> This is also quite a sensative issue as logically if the TR is confessionally required anyone who prefers a variant from the AV could be thrown off this board.


----------



## Thomas2007

Prufrock said:


> For you Westminster people out there:
> 
> If a pastor uses a modern translation in church based on the critical text, do you think this means he should/ought/must claim to take exception to WCF 1.8 and the doctrine of preservation.
> 
> In other words, can you confess the WCF without exception and claim that such is God's scripture. I'm curious to see how many come down on each side.
> 
> *Edit*
> I'm not asking for personal opinions on whether we should use the received text or not; I'm asking whether you think it is confessional.



Hi Paul,

From my studies I found that the Westminster Confession of Faith's statements upon Scripture are definitive, derived from Protestant scholasticism that defended the doctrine of Sola Scriptura against the Tridentine counterattack against that great doctrine. 

It is important to note, however, that 1.8 is not read in a vacuum of this history, which is presuppostionally laid in the prior statements which identify the canonical text, and disclaim the Apocraphyl texts as being non-canonical.

The Confession intends to fence in it's doctrinal standards upon the Protestant textual standard as the authentic and authoritative word.

Jack Rogers in "Scripture in the Westminster Confession" explained it this way:


_"The text of Scripture is the Word of God, and God’s Word is not to be sought independently of the text of Scripture. Inspiration does not usually imply any particular theory about how the Scripture came to be the Word of God. Nor does inspiration eliminate the human contribution which the human authors made to the written Scripture. And most certainly, for the Westminster Divines, inspiration can not be used as an excuse for trying to find God’s word separate from the written text of Scripture.”_​
Richard Muller in "Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics" explains the way in which Protestants approached the text of Scripture:

_“By “original and authentic” text, the Protestant orthodox do not mean the autographa which no one can possess but the apographa in the original tongue which are the source of all versions. The Jews throughout history and the church in the time of Christ regarded the Hebrew of the Old Testament as authentic and for nearly six centuries after Christ, the Greek of the New Testament was viewed as authentic without dispute. It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic does not demand direct reference to autographa in those languages; the “original and authentic text” of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa. The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice and the separate arguments for a received text free from major (i.e., non-scribal) errors rests on examination of the apographa and does not seek the infinite regress of the lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility.”​_​
The question, then, of the doctrine of Sola Scripture and the canon of Scripture in authentic Byzantine texts against Trent involves inspiration and all other divine attributes of the Scripture as well as textual, exegetical, and hermeneutical issues all synergistically coming together as an article of faith and confessionally defended by the Protestants in the Second Helvetic Confession which included a defense of the inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points, followed by the Belgic Confession and others and finally in our own Westminster Confession in the early 17th century. 

As stated previously, note that the canon of Scripture is first in our Confession prior to the doctrine of inspiration and authority and preservation - there is a reason for this. There is also a denial of the canonicity of the Apocrapha before you have a declaration of preservation. In terms of Authority you have a positive thesis (what is Scripture) and it is stated in terms of the canon, negative thesis (what is not Scripture), defense of thesis (providential preservation of authentic texts.)

For the Reformers it is important to understand that the canonicity of the text of Scripture is received in it’s final form, not in it’s initial form - it is received in the Apographa not in the Autographa and only the Greek Byzantine text type has continual successive canonical usage by the Christian Churches. In historical Reformed orthodoxy the discussion of autographa and apographa was designed to point toward a continuity of text-tradition between the original authors and the present day texts. Their approach functioned primarily as a hermeneutical lever designed to assert the priority of the Hebrew and Greek over the ancient versions, such as the Latin Vulgate, and to provide a methodological basis for the critical collation and comparison of texts in the original languages. For them, the autographa were not a concrete point of regress for the future critical examination of the text but rather a touchstone employed in gaining a proper perspective on current textual issues. The versions could never be anything more than versions, even if they were in Greek, such as the Vaticanus because it is, after all, a Greek translation of the Hebrew old testament with parts of the New Testament appended, and it could never represent the thoughts of the prophets quoad verba.

The difference between the Confessional position and the modern critical position really is a completely different orientation to the texts of Scripture. Hence, I do believe that if one rejects this standard they should take exception to the Westminster Confession of Faith statements upon it.

Cordially,

Thomas

-----Added 12/6/2008 at 02:46:26 EST-----



TimV said:


> _ There was a received text of the church before Erasmus put together the Received Text. The New Testament was passed down in generation of generation of miniscules, being preserved as the received text of the church, and was formally pronounced the Received Text by our reformed church. _
> 
> Before I withdraw my assumption of you not being tricky, could you please point me to this lower case received text? And tell me (please) yes or no, is it the same as the upper case Received Text that the rest of us assumed you were talking about?



Tim,

Leaving your disparaging attitude aside, certainly you do understand that Erasmus's work simply carried forth an existing hand written "manuscript" tradition into a printed edition. You would be correct to point out that the printing press didn't exist prior to it's invention, as to exactly how that undermines the Protestant textual tradition, I'll leave up to your imagination.

Everyone else understands that the movement from handwritten manuscripts to printed editions is the same textual tradition.

-----Added 12/6/2008 at 02:54:21 EST-----



KMK said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further on bibliographic references on WCF 1:8, it was remiss of me not to mention an article seminal to my own thinking, which is Theodore Letis' "Edward Freer Hills' Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesisatical Text," in Journal of Christian Reconstruction 12 (1989), 2:21ff. This article shows that for the reformed tradition the "authentical text" is in fact a canonical issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I found it for $9.10 here: https://www.chalcedonstore.com/xcart/product.php?productid=2189&cat=34&page=1
> 
> Does anyone know if it is online?
Click to expand...


No, it is not available online and it is a tremendous work.


----------



## TimV

> It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic* does not demand direct reference to autographa in those languages*; the “original and authentic text” of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa. The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice and the *separate* arguments for a received text free from major (i.e., non-scribal) errors rests on examination of the apographa and does not seek the infinite regress of the lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility.”



This is what I've been saying that the Divines meant in 1.8. Not the TR.



> certainly you do understand that Erasmus's work simply carried forth an existing hand written "manuscript" tradition into a printed edition.



I know that Erasmus dedicated the TR to the Pope who excommunicated Luther. I know that in some cases where Erasmus didn't have part of the Greek text he *back translated from the Latin Vulgate*. I know that the reason the the first published TR was so sloppy and full of errors was that a Spaniard had already finished a better one, and Erasmus wanted to beat his publishing of the text for pride and money. I know that for a hundred after Erasmus there were still revisions of the TR.



> The question that you're asking is roughly akin to "How can we believe in Sola Scriptura since there was not always scripture?"



I'm not asking any question about that subject. I stating that when 1.8 *says in all ages * they can't be referring to the TR. Which is why, to my knowledge, no Elder in the history of the Reformed church has been censured for betraying his vows for not exclusively teaching the flock from the TR. The question that I've been asking is whether those who think 90+ percent of the confessionally Reformed Elders are regularly breaking their ordination vows have thought about the subject. That those who think 1.8 means exclusively the TR have hit upon some novel way of promoting their vision of church history. That they truly understand the weight of the burden they seek to impose on the rest of us.


----------



## Thomas2007

TimV said:


> It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic* does not demand direct reference to autographa in those languages*; the “original and authentic text” of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa. The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice and the *separate* arguments for a received text free from major (i.e., non-scribal) errors rests on examination of the apographa and does not seek the infinite regress of the lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I've been saying that the Divines meant in 1.8. Not the TR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole basis of the critical text argument is that the apographa is not reliable and trustworthy, hence, they invert the Protestant approach and champion the view of Richard Simon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> certainly you do understand that Erasmus's work simply carried forth an existing hand written "manuscript" tradition into a printed edition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that Erasmus dedicated the TR to the Pope who excommunicated Luther. I know that in some cases where Erasmus didn't have part of the Greek text he *back translated from the Latin Vulgate*. I know that the reason the the first published TR was so sloppy and full of errors was that a Spaniard had already finished a better one, and Erasmus wanted to beat his publishing of the text for pride and money. I know that for a hundred after Erasmus there were still revisions of the TR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just finished a year long study on Erasmus and I don't find any of these things in the disparaging light you paint them in. What is your point, for example, in your statement that Erasmus dedicated the TR to the Pope, the same Pope that excommunicated Martin Luther? I've heard this statement for years, always coupled to this disparaging tone, but I don't understand what it's supposed to mean.
> 
> I read Erasmus's dedication to the Pope, to me it was a slap in his face. Luther was protected at the advice of Erasmus, which saved his life, who after publishing his Latin translation was in risk of being executed himself. Erasmus protects Luther and places his own neck on the chopping block instead - yet you make it sound like Erasmus is the "great enemy." I don't get it - certainly doctrinally Erasmus didn't join the Reformation, but he did sincerely want reform in the Church and he did till the soil for that seed to be planted and germinate in.
> 
> Rudolf Pfeiffer, in his History of Classical Scholarship from 1300 to 1850 has an insightful comment, “few modern scholars have taken trouble to consider Erasmus’ actual intentions.” Now, that statement I found to speak volumes, as I learned that in Erasmus concept his greek testament was supportive work for his Latin translation, not the other way around - as the picture was always painted to me.
> 
> Very few criticism’s concerning Erasmus’ Greek text follow publication, what is attacked is his Latin translation and Annotations. In the main it his Latin translation and Annotations that he spends the next few years defending in his disputes with Stunica and others before publication of his second edition of 1519.
> 
> Today these disparaging criticisms are all hurled from the 19th and 20th century with the rise of the critical schools, but toward the Greek instead of the Latin, and within them I find continual internal inconsistencies that I cannot reconcile. Many of which I found to be just plain disparagement without any factual support whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question that you're asking is roughly akin to "How can we believe in Sola Scriptura since there was not always scripture?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, not asking that at all - there has always been Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not asking any question about that subject. I stating that when 1.8 *says in all ages * they can't be referring to the TR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are referring to the text of the Greek speaking Churches, which we call the Byzantine textual base from which the printed Textus Receptus is the exemplar printed publication. In their view, which was consistent in the scholastic debate, other textual sources were inferior and not to be compared as part of the "authentic" tradition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why, to my knowledge, no Elder in the history of the Reformed church has been censured for betraying his vows for not exclusively teaching the flock from the TR. The question that I've been asking is whether those who think 90+ percent of the confessionally Reformed Elders are regularly breaking their ordination vows have thought about the subject. That those who think 1.8 means exclusively the TR have hit upon some novel way of promoting their vision of church history. That they truly understand the weight of the burden they seek to impose on the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've thought deeply about it and studied it intensively for years. It's not until the 20th century that this has become an issue and everything has been redefined. Even then, it's not until the seminaries are taken over by proponent of the critical schools that this really becomes an issue. This new and novel departure from the Protestant tradition, not someone that says we should maintain fidelity to it, is what is in question.
Click to expand...


----------



## TimV

Morning Thomas



> The whole basis of the critical text argument is that the apographa is not reliable and trustworthy, hence, they invert the Protestant approach and champion the view of Richard Simon.


Could you comment on book of life as opposed to tree of life, and explain why book of life is of Protestant rather then Roman Catholic origin? And whether the KJV or the ESV is a better translation of God's Word in Rev 22:19?



> Next, what is meant by the term, "Received Text"? This name was first applied to a printed Greek text only as late as 1633, or almost 120 years after the first published Greek New Testament appeared in 1516. In 1633, the Elzevirs of Leyden published the second edition of their Greek text, and that text contained the publisher's "blurb": textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, or, "therefore you have the text now received by all," from which the term textus receptus, or received text was taken, and applied collectively and retroactively to the series of published Greek New Testaments extending from 1516 to 1633 and beyond. Most notable among the many editors of Greek New Testaments in this period were Erasmus (5 editions: 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535), Robert Estienne a.k.a. Robertus Stephanus (4 editions: 1546, 1549, 1550, 1551), Theodore de Beza (9 editions between 1565 and 1604), and the Elzevirs (3 editions: 1624,1633, 1641). (3) These many Greek texts display a rather close general uniformity, a uniformity based on the fact that all these texts are more or less reprints of the text(s) edited by Erasmus, with only minor variations. These texts were not independently compiled by the many different editors on the basis of close personal examination of numerous Greek manuscripts, but are genealogically-related. (4) Proof of this is to be found in a number of "unique" readings in Erasmus' texts, that is, readings which are found in no known Greek manuscript but which are nevertheless found in the editions of Erasmus. One of these is the reading "book of life" in Revelation 22:19. All known Greek manuscripts here read "tree of life" instead of "book of life" as in the textus receptus. Where did the reading "book of life" come from? When Erasmus was compiling his text, he had access to only one manuscript of Revelation, and it lacked the last six verses, so he took the Latin Vulgate and back-translated from Latin to Greek. Unfortunately, the copy of the Vulgate he used read "book of life," unlike any Greek manuscript of the passage, and so Erasmus introduced a "unique" Greek reading into his text



Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?



> I've thought deeply about it and studied it intensively for years.


And are you still certain that the Septuagint is a giant hoax and that Christ never quoted from it?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Some info on Erasmus, his last six verses of Revelation, and also "the book of life". I post only the links so those who desire edification may find it, without being verbose here.

Concerning Erasmus: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/what-authentic-new-testament-text-15134/#post196909

[I noticed the link in the above post to Dr. John Cereghin's online paper, _In Defense of Erasmus_, is broken, so here's an updated one: http://www.solascriptura-tt.org/PessoasNosSeculos/InDefenseOfErasmus-Cereghin.htm]

Thoughts on the Textus Receptus: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/inspired-teachings-only-35364/#post439309

On Rev 22:19 (see also the following post, #31): http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/merits-v-16705/#post215350


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> All reasonable people who have looked into the matter know that Christ quoted both from the Hebrew and Septuagint. That settles the matter.





TimV said:


> And are you still certain that the Septuagint is a giant hoax and that Christ never quoted from it?



Basically what you are asking is whether Thomas is 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable'.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Prufrock said:


> 1.) In a sense, yes. Objectively speaking, there is a difference in the way the texts are formed. The one is based upon the way in which the text has been received; the other discards this as a viable, historical, rational method of knowing the original text, and seeks to reconstruct it by rational means. This is just different. Whether God is providentially controlling the assembling of the CT is another issue, and one that is outside the scope of the current discussion.



This is probably a poor choice of threads for my first post, especially since the gentleman I'm replying to has already exited the discussion, but here goes anyway...

The specific difference being discussed on this thread between the critical method versus the work of TR-favoring scholars is not entirely qualitative, but quantitative.

1. Both sift through manuscripts (or in the case of the TR, I suppose you should prefer to say, printed works) containing textual variants, and make decisions about which readings to retain.

2. Both admit that a given reading has not been in use by 100% of the church through 100% of its history. (Comparing our Bibles to citations by the Fathers abundantly illustrates this.) Prufrock also admitted this above, when he said that variants exist in the TR. If this point I'm making were false, variants wouldn't exist, or at least never be used in the true church.


Now, it seems to me that TR-only proponents are in a catch-22 situation. If they argue that only one Bible has been used in all the true church over its history, then they must explain why variants exist even in Reformational versions. Reality check -- to my knowledge, nobody in the English or German speaking Reformed world either uses, or has used a Bible identical in readings to Erasmus' edition -- or any other TR edition. The fact is that versions like the KJV freely followed non-TR readings when the translators felt like it was most correct to do so.

And if they argue that the variants are minimal, and that small variations don't really count in the grand scheme of things... then I would submit that the CT differs in only minimally in the grand scheme of things, and shouldn't cause anybody undue heartburn with regard to God's preservation of his Word.

The analogy I like to use with God's preservation of scripture is to liken it to his preservation of his Church, or of Christians in general. Are we kept "pure"? Well........ yes and no. God surely does sanctify his people and lead them by his Spirit on a sure upward path to heaven, and if you compare them with unbelievers, then it's obvious he has a pure people. But are they pure in the sense of without any sin? No.

Similarly, the autographs were given perfectly pure, and we trust that God has preserved the purity of his Word sufficiently that we may trust it with our eternal souls... but do we claim to have letter for letter transcriptions of the autographs? I would hope we know better than that.

Turning the question on its head a bit, can we ask whether the Westminster Divines believed they had a transcription of the autographs letter for letter? Since they were learned men who knew something about Biblical manuscripts, we can easily reject this nonsensical idea. *Therefore, their meaning in WCF 1.8 surely allows for variants in the text.*

EDIT -- Whoops, forgot my signature. Hopefully will be there for the future...


----------



## MW

TsonMariytho said:


> Now, it seems to me that TR-only proponents are in a catch-22 situation. If they argue that only one Bible has been used in all the true church over its history, then they must explain why variants exist even in Reformational versions. Reality check -- to my knowledge, nobody in the English or German speaking Reformed world either uses, or has used a Bible identical in readings to Erasmus' edition -- or any other TR edition. The fact is that versions like the KJV freely followed non-TR readings when the translators felt like it was most correct to do so.



Welcome to the board. This is a good reality check, but it really only checks those who unfairly ridicule the pro-TR position as if it deliberately ignored the fact of variants. It doesn't. Those who advocate the superiority of the traditional text are more than willing to give an account of the variety of mss. in existence, but they do so from a unique, biblically informed starting point which maintains that the church *possesses* God's word and is not in the awkward position of having to *discover* God's word. It is undoubtedly true that some mss. and fathers might appeal to a different textual tradition at times, but this does not negate the fact that the "TR" has been the accessible text of the Christian church throughout the ages.


----------



## TsonMariytho

armourbearer said:


> TsonMariytho said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, it seems to me that TR-only proponents are in a catch-22 situation. If they argue that only one Bible has been used in all the true church over its history, then they must explain why variants exist even in Reformational versions. Reality check -- to my knowledge, nobody in the English or German speaking Reformed world either uses, or has used a Bible identical in readings to Erasmus' edition -- or any other TR edition. The fact is that versions like the KJV freely followed non-TR readings when the translators felt like it was most correct to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the board. This is a good reality check, but it really only checks those who unfairly ridicule the pro-TR position as if it deliberately ignored the fact of variants. It doesn't. Those who advocate the superiority of the traditional text are more than willing to give an account of the variety of mss. in existence, but they do so from a unique, biblically informed starting point which maintains that the church *possesses* God's word and is not in the awkward position of having to *discover* God's word. It is undoubtedly true that some mss. and fathers might appeal to a different textual tradition at times, but this does not negate the fact that the "TR" has been the accessible text of the Christian church throughout the ages.
Click to expand...


Thanks, armourbearer.

Right. The first choice in the catch-22 only applies to Gail Riplinger KJV-onlyist types.

The second choice, the paragraph you didn't quote, applies to those whom I'd describe as more thoughtful and informed TR advocates -- who must admit in the end a difference of degree with the critical method.

The Greek NTs used by TR advocating scholars today differ from the edition of Erasmus by little bits here and there. They are cool with that.

The Greek NTs used by CT advocating scholars today differ from the edition of Erasmus by (a whole lot of) little bits here and there.

Both confess they don't know precisely, letter for letter, what was in the autographs. Both practice textual criticism -- which is why TR advocates today do not use Erasmus' original Greek NT unmodified. They felt changes were necessary to better approximate what they believed to be the original text.

Again, a difference of degree. Therefore, both must hold to the WCF definition of "pure" as admitting some level of man-introduced impurity, while nonetheless asserting that our Hebrew and Greek scriptures are for all practical purposes pure. Again -- both CT and TR advocates may claim this in good conscience.


----------



## MW

TsonMariytho said:


> The second choice, the paragraph you didn't quote, applies to those whom I'd describe as more thoughtful and informed TR advocates -- who must admit in the end a difference of degree with the critical method.



This is the point which needs to be corrected. It is a difference of *kind*. That which passes for textual criticism today is bent on *discovering * the text of Scripture, and to date are only confident they have *approximated* to the NT text. The believing criticism of the TR advocates works from the principle that they *possess* the text of Scripture, the word of God as originally delivered to the NT church and preserved through all ages.


----------



## TsonMariytho

armourbearer said:


> a unique, biblically informed starting point which maintains that the church *possesses* God's word and is not in the awkward position of having to *discover* God's word. It is undoubtedly true that some mss. and fathers might appeal to a different textual tradition at times, but this does not negate the fact that the "TR" has been the accessible text of the Christian church throughout the ages.



I think when you say "TR" above you mean "Byzantine" text type. While I have no doubt that you already know the following, I'll belabor the point anyway, since I think your usage above was not quite correct...

The TR is a printing tradition begun by Erasmus, who assembled an eclectic body of manuscripts (and as somebody pointed out, a bit of personal Latin-to-Greek translation work to fill in the holes). The TR did not exist as a single book until Erasmus undertook this.

The Byzantine text-type, on the other hand, is a somewhat loose label placed upon textual readings that scholars believe should be classified together over against other readings with a different label. :^)

The above is another way of saying that you never find a manuscript of the Bible that has all the Byzantine readings together, or all the Alexandrian readings together, etc. You find admixture. This is why Byzantine-priority advocates like Dr. Robinson create their own critical texts with "Byzantine-only" readings.

Back to the TR... while many of the TR's readings are described by scholars as Byzantine, many others of the TR's readings are distinctly not. There is no reason I'm aware of to believe that the TR's unique, non-Byzantine readings have been the ones always in use by the church, which is why, for example, Dr. Robinson culled these out of his edition.

Just to reiterate, this is in response to your statement that: "the 'TR' has been the accessible text of the Christian church throughout the ages". Both Byzantine priority advocates and CT advocates would dispute that. The TR is its own unique animal (no disrespect intended).

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 07:28:05 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> TsonMariytho said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second choice, the paragraph you didn't quote, applies to those whom I'd describe as more thoughtful and informed TR advocates -- who must admit in the end a difference of degree with the critical method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the point which needs to be corrected. It is a difference of *kind*. That which passes for textual criticism today is bent on *discovering * the text of Scripture, and to date are only confident they have *approximated* to the NT text. The believing criticism of the TR advocates works from the principle that they *possess* the text of Scripture, the word of God as originally delivered to the NT church and preserved through all ages.
Click to expand...


I think we're going in circles now. When you say we "possess" the text of scripture, are you claiming that we know word for word, letter for letter, the content of the autographs? If so, point me to an Amazon link, because I would spend a very large percentage of my yearly income to acquire such a volume.

If not, then why do you refuse to imagine that somebody else's choice of variants can be just as acceptable as your own?


----------



## MW

TsonMariytho said:


> I think when you say "TR" above you mean "Byzantine" text type.



No, I mean TR, which includes not only the ms. witness but also the testimony of the fathers.

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 07:40:11 EST-----



TsonMariytho said:


> If not, then why do you refuse to imagine that somebody else's choice of variants can be just as acceptable as your own?



When one reads the UBS Greek New Testament between editions 3 and 4, it becomes plain that the choice of variants based on eclectic (sceptical) criticism continues to vary from year to year and makes no headway towards settling the actual text of the inspired NT.


----------



## TsonMariytho

armourbearer said:


> When one reads the UBS Greek New Testament between editions 3 and 4, it becomes plain that the choice of variants based on eclectic (sceptical) criticism continues to vary from year to year and makes no headway towards settling the actual text of the inspired NT.



Granted, at least to a degree... Presumably the editors would dispute that, since why would they modify it if they didn't like the new reading better...

Let's change the subject. You know, a major problem in the church today is that Protestant churches have all these disagreements about doctrine. Even within Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist churches you have about as many opinions as you have people.

All this could be solved by appealing to the authority handed down in the church through history -- that of the Catholic councils and of the Holy Father. You see, when you settle on a single voice of authority, then you don't have all this flurry of contradicting ideas.

--------------

OK, so the above was tongue in cheek, but you see where I am going. I would love to settle on an edition of the Hebrew (which is less of a problem) and Greek (which is more of a problem) scriptures and say, "That's it. That's the text that Paul wrote. No more textual criticism necessary." But which text should we choose?

Why should I accept the opinion of Erasmus on the matter of textual criticism, any more than I should accept the opinion of the Pope on doctrinal questions? Non-intellectually justifiable certainty on a topic is not preferable to intellectually rigorous uncertainty.

For what it's worth, I bet Erasmus would use the Nestle-Aland text if he were alive today. His intention all along was to issue an improved Latin translation -- the Greek was just sort of grabbed together from the best among the sources he had access to at the time. I am highly skeptical that Erasmus would have claimed to possess the text of the autographs.

In my opinion, a discussion of the primacy of the TR really does boil down to the question, "What reason do we have to regard Erasmus' work that highly?"


----------



## MW

TsonMariytho said:


> In my opinion, a discussion of the primacy of the TR really does boil down to the question, "What reason do we have to regard Erasmus' work that highly?"



Then you have much work yet to do before you can claim to be a competent critic of the TR.


----------



## TimV

> The believing criticism of the TR advocates works from the principle that they possess the text of Scripture, the word of God as originally delivered to the NT church and preserved through all ages.



I note from Steve's reply to the question of tree of life vs. book of life that he quotes someone who quotes someone else who says that 2 out of the 5200 Greek manuscripts that we have today say book and not tree. The laws of averages being what they are, the chance of Erasmus having one of those two texts when he put together the TR is about zero. It would be interesting to have some information about those two Greek manuscripts.

So the obvious question is whether or not Erasmus, if he had 10 Greek copies of Revelation, and all the copies said tree instead of book, would have used the word tree instead of book. And if the overwhelming majority of Byzantine type texts use the word tree, is this not evidence that the Church has possessed the whole Word of God throughout the ages?


----------



## Hippo

A problem with the CT is that you have to accept that you will never know with absolute presicision every letter of the inspired text in its original state, or indeed in some later perfected state. What you can do though is to trust that God has preserved the text in such a way that his purpose of salvation and self revelation have been preserved. i.e. that they have been kept pure in all ages and are therefore authentical. 

The original text of the TR has been modified since Erasmus drew up his text and there is still discussion concerning the exact form the text should take. This is seen as being in accordance with the Confessional statement as it is accepted that the text being kept pure does not require there to be no historical variations. With a TR position you do not get certainty either unless you invent such certainty.

The TR only camp (which is rare on this board) do not like the potential confusion that differing textual basis can bring and it is to achieve such certainty that a TR or AV standard is insisted on. It is however wrong to achieve certainty by insisting on a human standard and to be honest the whole concept is very Roman. There is no merit in certainty if such certainty can be wrong. It is a false and perhaps idolitrous certainty.

It may well be that the CT is often drawn up incorrectly due to its presupositional basis and this is a good argument to have, but to condemn all the CT's positions as being skeptical as they do not accord to the TR position would be misplaced as its presupposes that the TR is perfect, which is a self fulfilling prophecy. 

When the Confession was written there was no real consideration of the varied textual basis that we are now aware of. Indeed the confession affirms by implication that in the Alexandrian church they had a text that was kept pure (in that this was also "in all ages"), it is therefore revisionist to demand a TR basis in order to be confessional. What you can demand is that in all ages the Church has had a pure text that can be appealed to, in both Alexandria and Byzantium. The Confession insists on Textual diversity rather than a TR monoploly. 

An argument that the TR is to be preferred is a powerful one, but I cannot see how such a position is demanded by the confessions which is the OP of this thread.


----------



## TsonMariytho

armourbearer said:


> Then you have much work yet to do before you can claim to be a competent critic of the TR.



I am sure that for all of us, the level of knowledge of every aspect of the Holy Scriptures that we desire, is a level we will approach, but never achieve until the day when we sit at the feet of their Author.


----------



## Grymir

Alot of this dialog is deeply philosophically based. Thanks TimV for that link in your post. Now I know where you get some of your info. To the rest of y'all, you also have made the same presuppositions that modern philosophy has. The method becomes the prime search and not Meta-physics. 

CT is based alot on Codex's that the reformers knew about and rejected. Vaticanus was greatly flawed, yet it is used, for example. It's the methodology thats at issue. Has the church been 'off' these years to only be corrected by 'moderns'? Since the church fathers heavily quoted the Bible, it's no mystery what the originals said. We don't have to look under a rock to find a new scroll. It's there for all to read. Which is what the reformers and those before them did. That's where CT digresses. Using later copies to update isn't necessary.

This also relates to the OP. Do we have a Church tradition that is trustworthy, or do we need to update our practices to reflect modern times to make it 'relevant'? This reflects what people think of the RT/CT issue. We don't adjust the Bible to the age or people (CT), we adjust people/age to the Bible (RT). This is how the philosophical presuppositions impact the church and it's people.


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> So the obvious question is whether or not Erasmus, if he had 10 Greek copies of Revelation, and all the copies said tree instead of book, would have used the word tree instead of book. And if the overwhelming majority of Byzantine type texts use the word tree, is this not evidence that the Church has possessed the whole Word of God throughout the ages?



I'm not inclined to argue points requiring the establishing of facts which cannot be proved. What Erasmus might have done is neither here nor there. If he followed the confessional position then he may well have ignored numerous mss. in order to follow a traditionally accepted reading. Anyone acquainted with the science of textual criticism will understand that it is sometimes necessary to follow a minority in order to maintain the principles of sound criticism. The question is simply this -- Are we to settle the biblical text on the basis of the same principle that we would settle the text of any ancient document? Many modern textual critics answer, Yes, whereas those committed to the principle outlined in WCF 1:8 maintain that believing criticism should not ignore ecclesiastical tradition.


----------



## Hippo

Grymir said:


> This also relates to the OP. Do we have a Church tradition that is trustworthy, or do we need to update our practices to reflect modern times to make it 'relevant'? This reflects what people think of the RT/CT issue. We don't adjust the Bible to the age or people (CT), we adjust people/age to the Bible (RT). This is how the philosophical presuppositions impact the church and it's people.



Semper Reforandum dont you know, its about testing your traditions. By their very nature traditions are often not trustworthy. 

You could have said the same thing about the Reformers rejecting the Vulgate.


----------



## MW

TsonMariytho said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have much work yet to do before you can claim to be a competent critic of the TR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure that for all of us, the level of knowledge of every aspect of the Holy Scriptures that we desire, is a level we will approach, but never achieve until the day when we sit at the feet of their Author.
Click to expand...


That is true; but "boiling down" technical discussions of the TR to Erasmian origins can only serve to obscure much information which is attainable in this life.


----------



## Hippo

armourbearer said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the obvious question is whether or not Erasmus, if he had 10 Greek copies of Revelation, and all the copies said tree instead of book, would have used the word tree instead of book. And if the overwhelming majority of Byzantine type texts use the word tree, is this not evidence that the Church has possessed the whole Word of God throughout the ages?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not inclined to argue points requiring the establishing of facts which cannot be proved. What Erasmus might have done is neither here nor there. If he followed the confessional position then he may well have ignored numerous mss. in order to follow a traditionally accepted reading. Anyone acquainted with the science of textual criticism will understand that it is sometimes necessary to follow a minority in order to maintain the principles of sound criticism. The question is simply this -- Are we to settle the biblical text on the basis of the same principle that we would settle the text of any ancient document? Many modern textual critics answer, Yes, whereas those committed to the principle outlined in WCF 1:8 maintain that believing criticism should not ignore ecclesiastical tradition.
Click to expand...


Which is why it would be great to have a confessionally based CT text.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Grymir said:


> CT is based alot on Codex's that the reformers knew about and rejected. Vaticanus was greatly flawed, yet it is used. It's the methodology thats at issue. Has the church been 'off' these years to only be corrected by 'moderns'? Since the church fathers heavily quoted the Bible, it's no mystery what the originals said. We don't have to look under a rock to find a new scroll. It's there for all to read. Which is what the reformers and those before them did. That's where CT digresses. Using later copies to update isn't necessary.



So we find that Erasmus knew about a particular text and rejected it. That's somewhat interesting and helpful... but just how helpful is it? Again, what reason do we have to trust Erasmus' judgment?

What was Erasmus' reasoning process in rejecting Vaticanus or whatever we're referring to here? Do we have a record of that?

What was Erasmus' general method in ascertaining the "true text of scripture"? Do we have a record of that?

I think when it comes down to brass tacks, we will find that while textual criticism has existed in some form as long as texts have existed, a rigorous scientific approach is relatively new, and many older scholars were doing good just to collect at least one Greek copy of each New Testament book, let alone make a judgment about which readings were superior, that should still carry weight today.

Modern scholars perform their work with transparency. If you want to where Kurt Aland found each of his readings, his editions supply all of that information. You want to know his method? There are books about it.

We just don't have that luxury with Erasmus. My impression is that some people accept his edition on faith that God wouldn't have allowed him to grab any manuscripts with incorrect readings in them. This faith is misplaced.



Grymir said:


> This also relates to the OP. Do we have a Church tradition that is trustworthy, or do we need to update our practices to reflect modern times to make it 'relevant'? This reflects what people think of the RT/CT issue. We don't adjust the Bible to the age or people (CT), we adjust people/age to the Bible (RT). This is how the philosophical presuppositions impact the church and it's people.



I think the above contains an erroneous implication, at least the way I understand it and I think most people would understand it. It seems to suggest that compatibility with modern cultures is a priority for preparers of critical Biblical texts. But this is not true -- their goal is to deduce the contents of the original text, no more, no less.


----------



## MW

Hippo said:


> Which is why it would be great to have a confessionally based CT text.



Sounds like Hayagriva.


----------



## TsonMariytho

armourbearer said:


> Sounds like Hayagriva.



Had to google that... you are funny. :^)


----------



## Grymir

Hayagriva, That's good to know. I work for a Hindi from India. I'll get some first hand knowledge about this. 

Fear not, they have their scripture disputes too!


----------



## Hippo

armourbearer said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why it would be great to have a confessionally based CT text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like Hayagriva.
Click to expand...


Sorry for not understanding your post but surely a prespositionally sound examination of the available texts (i.e not limited to just the Byzantium texts) would address most of your problems with the CT?


----------



## MW

Hippo said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why it would be great to have a confessionally based CT text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like Hayagriva.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry for not understanding your post but surely a prespositionally sound examination of the available texts (i.e not limited to just the Byzantium texts) would address most of your problems with the CT?
Click to expand...


Hayagriva -- you are placing a horse's head (CT) on a human body (confessional position).

Readings "not limited to just the Byzantium texts" supposes lost readings can be found, and thereby betrays the fideistic presupposition of the confession.


----------



## TsonMariytho

armourbearer said:


> That is true; but "boiling down" technical discussions of the TR to Erasmian origins can only serve to obscure much information which is attainable in this life.



Trying to veer somewhat back toward the original topic here...

I.VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.​
Your argument for TR primacy seems to be that:

--------------------------------------------------
- We know God has kept his word "pure" in all ages.

- There is a certain level of textual corruption that you are still willing to call "pure", viz. the variants between TR editions -- but the variants between the TR and the CT (and presumably also between TR versus many Byzantine texts?) happen to exceed your threshold for the WCF's definition of "pure".

- Scholars of the Reformation period seized upon Erasmus' edition and used it and its successors almost exclusively.

- Therefore, that text is the "pure" text of scripture, and all others are to be judged based on comparison to it.

--------------------------------------------------

I'm struggling a bit to put your position into words, please correct me if I am setting up a straw man anywhere. One thing that is clear to me is that your position is not derived from analysis of manuscript evidence or patristic usage, but rather on the authority of the text handed down. In the TR primacy position, manuscript readings that contradict the TR must be rejected, and readings that agree with the TR are taken as icing on the cake, confirmation that the TR is correct and has always been used. Thus all manuscripts are relegated to secondary status beneath our printed TR of Erasmus.

Objections to this position abound. It only considers the church that used the TR as its Greek Bible during the Reformation, and lacks convincing evidence from (a) the church elsewhere in the world, and (b) the church at other times in history. By judging all manuscripts based on those specific ones that Erasmus happened to choose (for reasons not known to us today), we unfortunately relegate most of the unique copies of the Bible transmitted for our use today to the "ignored bin". How does that honor the God who gave us all these manuscripts and gave us intelligent minds to perform textual criticism that we may try to remove man's mistakes?


----------



## MW

TsonMariytho said:


> How does that honor the God who gave us all these manuscripts and gave us intelligent minds to perform textual criticism that we may try to remove man's mistakes?



Again, I don't accept your simplified view of the TR position (you persist in presuming we don't engage in textual criticism of any kind), but if I may answer this question -- it glorifies God because it acknowledges that we do not have all the facts and evidence to be able to make confident judgements which overturn the testimony of the church through the ages. We accept that we are entering into the labours of others, and do not suppose that because they came before us that their conclusions must have somehow been less scientific than the modern textual critic who manages to hide his assumptions and present his theory as a neutral sifting of the facts.


----------



## TsonMariytho

armourbearer said:


> Again, I don't accept your simplified view of the TR position (you persist in presuming we don't engage in textual criticism of any kind), but if I may answer this question -- it glorifies God because it acknowledges that we do not have all the facts and evidence to be able to make confident judgements which overturn the testimony of the church through the ages. We accept that we are entering into the labours of others, and do not suppose that because they came before us that their conclusions must have somehow been less scientific than the modern textual critic who manages to hide his assumptions and present his theory as a neutral sifting of the facts.



Can you give me an example of at least one reading derived from manuscript criticism that TR primacy advocates admit should override the TR? Or do you believe that neutral textual criticism of all available manuscripts is able to prove the TR's primacy? Or... ?

As far as I can tell, the science of textual criticism within TR primacy circles is fairly limited to recognizing the differences between TR editions, going on playful tangents like Scrivener's to make a TR that approximates the KJV, and cherry-picking manuscript references that support the TR (which are adjudged correct, as opposed to those that contradict the TR, which are adjudged incorrect).

Can you enlighten my impression, which you seemed to imply is mistaken?


----------



## Prufrock

Andrew,

Without presuming to speak for Mr. Winzer, yet to give him a break -- it is not that the TR advocates are less "neutral" in the textual criticism (neither side should have the audacity to claim a detached neutrality void of presupposition), or even less dedicated in the critical task: rather, it is that they are asking a fundamentally different set of questions in accordance with the stated presupposition of preservation, rather than corruption.

Over and out -- again.


----------



## MW

TsonMariytho said:


> Can you give me an example of at least one reading derived from manuscript criticism that TR primacy advocates admit should override the TR? Or do you believe that neutral textual criticism of all available manuscripts is able to prove the TR's primacy? Or... ?
> 
> As far as I can tell, the science of textual criticism within TR primacy circles is fairly limited to recognizing the differences between TR editions, going on playful tangents like Scrivener's to make a TR that approximates the KJV, and cherry-picking manuscript references that support the TR (which are adjudged correct, as opposed to those that contradict the TR, which are adjudged incorrect).



First, why should I be obliged to bring forth examples of variation where you yourself have recognised variants in the TR tradition, and Scrivener's work itself testifies of the need to clarify which form of the TR was employed by the translators of the AV? Supposing I came to the conclusion that Scrivener's TR provides the original reading, does that make it impossible to conclude that I have arrived at that decision by an exact discrimination of all the evidence which can be sifted? If so, then obviously there is prejudice from your side of the debate which refuses to examine the evidence in the remote possibility that the TR might be correct.

Secondly, this issue requires such a large induction of particulars that it is useless raising one or two readings which may or may not favour one textual theory over another. Such is the complexity of the different lines of evidence that one or two readings might count against a textual theory and yet the theory still stand on the basis of cumulative evidence.

Thirdly, Scrivener's work is deservedly entitled to be regarded as a piece of sound scholarship; your belittling of that scholarship either shows ignorance of his work or just plain ignorance.


----------



## TsonMariytho

armourbearer said:


> First, why should I be obliged to bring forth examples of variation where you yourself have recognised variants in the TR tradition, and Scrivener's work itself testifies of the need to clarify which form of the TR was employed by the translators of the AV? Supposing I came to the conclusion that Scrivener's TR provides the original reading, does that make it impossible to conclude that I have arrived at that decision by an exact discrimination of all the evidence which can be sifted? If so, then obviously there is prejudice from your side of the debate which refuses to examine the evidence in the remote possibility that the TR might be correct.
> 
> Secondly, this issue requires such a large induction of particulars that it is useless raising one or two readings which may or may not favour one textual theory over another. Such is the complexity of the different lines of evidence that one or two readings might count against a textual theory and yet the theory still stand on the basis of cumulative evidence.
> 
> Thirdly, Scrivener's work is deservedly entitled to be regarded as a piece of sound scholarship; your belittling of that scholarship either shows ignorance of his work or just plain ignorance.



The above was un-called-for. I did not belittle the level of scholarship in Scrivener's work. In fact, I have a very high regard for Scrivener. However, you are starting to reveal more about your position, and I believe it is showing some holes.

Scrivener created a new edition of the Greek NT that approximated the KJV English translation. This was a very interesting work and also very important for those who know and love the KJV.

However....... we are talking about the original Greek and Hebrew texts, and how God has preserved them through the ages. If you elevate the KJV to the level of God's endorsement of exemplifying his "pure" maintenance of his word, on what basis do you do so? In other words, the NIV is a translation with wide acceptance today. If you eventually argue for the ultimate correctness of the Scrivener "TR" because you like the KJV, why can't I do something similar with the NIV?

It is very telling that the conversation has shifted from Greek NT manuscripts and printed editions, over to an English translation. This kind of thing should not really happen in a discussion on textual criticism.


----------



## MW

TsonMariytho said:


> The above was un-called-for. I did not belittle the level of scholarship in Scrivener's work. In fact, I have a very high regard for Scrivener. However, you are starting to reveal more about your position, and I believe it is showing some holes.



You commented, "going on playful tangents like Scrivener's to make a TR that approximates the KJV." It called for a defence of the scholarly nature of Scrivener's work.



TsonMariytho said:


> It is very telling that the conversation has shifted from Greek NT manuscripts and printed editions, over to an English translation. This kind of thing should not really happen in a discussion on textual criticism.



Yes, but you were the one who brought up the AV in relation to Scrivener's work; you need to keep better control of where you steer the discussion and ensure you do not bring up issues which you yourself know are not germane to the question being discussed.


----------



## TsonMariytho

armourbearer said:


> You commented, "going on playful tangents like Scrivener's to make a TR that approximates the KJV." It called for a defence of the scholarly nature of Scrivener's work.



OK, I can see how you misunderstood that. However, a tangent is absolutely something that scholars frequently "go on". Is the tangential work important? Often! Like I said, those who know and love the KJV are very interested to know where it came from.

But is that work important for establishing the text of the autographs as closely as we can? That's a different criterion, and it has nothing to do with his level of scholarship, for which again, I have the highest regard.



TsonMariytho said:


> It is very telling that the conversation has shifted from Greek NT manuscripts and printed editions, over to an English translation. This kind of thing should not really happen in a discussion on textual criticism.





armourbearer said:


> Yes, but you were the one who brought up the AV in relation to Scrivener's work; you need to keep better control of where you steer the discussion and ensure you do not bring up issues which you yourself know are not germane to the question being discussed.



Hmmmm. I read the following...



armourbearer said:


> First, why should I be obliged to bring forth examples of variation where you yourself have recognised variants in the TR tradition, and Scrivener's work itself testifies of the need to clarify which form of the TR was employed by the translators of the AV? Supposing I came to the conclusion that Scrivener's TR provides the original reading, does that make it impossible to conclude that I have arrived at that decision by an exact discrimination of all the evidence which can be sifted? If so, then obviously there is prejudice from your side of the debate which refuses to examine the evidence in the remote possibility that the TR might be correct.



... and concluded that you held the position that a move from the TR of Erasmus to the TR of Scrivener was a move closer to the autographs. My apologies if I assumed that in error. As I read your post again, I may have been too hasty and click-type-happy. :^(


----------



## Thomas2007

TimV said:


> Morning Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole basis of the critical text argument is that the apographa is not reliable and trustworthy, hence, they invert the Protestant approach and champion the view of Richard Simon.
> 
> 
> 
> Could you comment on book of life as opposed to tree of life, and explain why book of life is of Protestant rather then Roman Catholic origin? And whether the KJV or the ESV is a better translation of God's Word in Rev 22:19?
Click to expand...

[/quote]

Hi Tim,

Other's have responded to this, I don't want to hijack this thread and take it into a direction not intended. Elder Rafalsky provided links to other forums in Puritan Board where much of this has already been discussed at length.

I will say this, though. In my studies, I found that a great portion of the disparagement toward Erasmus and his work on the text seems to be intentionally jaded to obscure the facts. I walked away with a deja vue feeling very similar to when I became Reformed and went and read Calvin et al. for myself and discovered that everything I was told in the Arminian camp wasn't a correct representation of the facts.

A good example is this reference to Revelation. Erasmus was very specific in his description of this copy, he believed it to be a very close copy of the Autograph itself and said so explicitly. What is also obscured is the copies Erasmus had access to in Italy, the copies he had in England that he couldn't bring with him to Basel. We are also given the impression that his work in Basel was something he did all by himself and was shoddy work. That isn't true, some great Reformers worked along side of him, namely Oecalampadius (sp?). We are told by the critical camp is that Erasmus did the whole of this work in a period of about a year in Basel, the impression left is that he started and finished his collation of manuscripts there, and that simply isn't true. He prepared the work for printing in Basel - not the whole of his research which extends back through his entire career once he decided to devote his life to the study of Scripture. Hence, the charge that he only had access to a small and late portion of manuscripts, with the intention of making his work appear deficient and unreliable is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

They also, in telling half truths, mislead us about the actual data available. An agenda was established to discredit the Received Text and many disparagements were drafted which after being repeated for a hundred and fifty or so years have become ipso facto historical facts, when they aren't.





> I've thought deeply about it and studied it intensively for years.


And are you still certain that the Septuagint is a giant hoax and that Christ never quoted from it?[/QUOTE]

Did you ever take the time to read Wasserstein's "Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today?"

My position on that is pretty clear in the thread we discussed it in. One of those is here and another here. People can read for themselves the actual discourse and determine for themselves whether your fanciful representation of it reflects the position I hold or not.


----------



## MW

TsonMariytho said:


> But is that work important for establishing the text of the autographs as closely as we can?



For this you might be interested in his plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament.


----------



## Prufrock

armourbearer said:


> For this you might be interested in his plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament.



(Sorry this is off topic) Are you familiar with the fourth edition of his work compiled by Edward Miller? If so, is it worth it, or is its only value in cataloging modern work, thus making more recent works more worthwhile?


----------



## TsonMariytho

armourbearer said:


> TsonMariytho said:
> 
> 
> 
> But is that work important for establishing the text of the autographs as closely as we can?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For this you might be interested in his plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament.
Click to expand...


While Scrivener was a TR advocate, he did not entertain illogical ideas about the primacy of the readings of the KJV English translation over against the Greek TR of Erasmus. The most valuable contribution of his KJV based Greek text for "autograph-aimed" textual criticism was in the footnotes.

Scrivener was well known as a defender of the TR; but he allegedly shifted toward the end of his life to a more moderate position. Here's a snippet from A History of Textual Criticism by Marvin Richardson Vincent:

With Dean Burgon he stood for the position that
all available authorities, and not the most ancient
only, should be considered in the settlement of the
text, and earnestly combated the tendency to rely too
exclusively on the testimony of [Aleph] and B. He was,
however, more moderate than Burgon, who pronounced Opinion of
[Aleph] and B to be the most corrupt of manuscripts. Codez °-
Scrivener says : " We accord to Codex B at least as
much weight as to any single document in existence ; "
and again, " We have no wish to dissemble the great
value of the Codex Vaticanus, which, in common with
our opponents, we regard as the most weighty single
authority that we possess." He also differed with
Burgon on 1 Tim. 3 : 16. In the last edition of the
Introduction his discussion of principles is summed
up in four practical rules : (1) That the true readings Critical
of the Greek New Testament cannot safely be derived
from any one set of authorities, whether manuscripts,
Versions, or Fathers, but ought to be the result of a
patient comparison and careful estimate of the evidence
supplied by them all. (2) That where there is
a real agreement between all documents containing the
Gospels up to the sixth century, and in the other parts
of the New Testament up to the ninth, the testimony
of later manuscripts and Versions, though not to be
rejected unheard, must be regarded with great suspicion,
and unless upheld by strong internal evidence,
can hardly be adopted. (3) That where the more
ancient documents are at variance with each other,
the later uncial and cursive copies, especially those of
approved merit, are of real importance as being the
surviving representatives of other codices, very probably
as early, perhaps even earlier, than any now
extant. (4) That in weighing conflicting evidence we
must assign the highest value, not to those readings
which are attested by the greatest number of wit-
nesses, but to those which come to us from several
remote and independent sources, and which bear the
least likeness to each other in respect to genius and
general character. ​


----------



## SolaGratia

Andrew,

So what greek text do you want for the WCF?


----------



## Thomas2007

TsonMariytho said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.) In a sense, yes. Objectively speaking, there is a difference in the way the texts are formed. The one is based upon the way in which the text has been received; the other discards this as a viable, historical, rational method of knowing the original text, and seeks to reconstruct it by rational means. This is just different. Whether God is providentially controlling the assembling of the CT is another issue, and one that is outside the scope of the current discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Andrew,
> 
> Welcome to Puritan Board, I'd like to make a few comments into some parts of your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> TsonMariytho said:
> 
> 
> 
> The specific difference being discussed on this thread between the critical method versus the work of TR-favoring scholars is not entirely qualitative, but quantitative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the basic presuppositions of modern textual criticism are humanistic and assume a naturalistic and evolving world and history. For example, it was once held that the days of Moses had no writing and was limited to oral tradition. Yet, when it was proven that it was an era of literacy, the presupposition remained because of the basic premise. The self attesting nature of Scripture of being an inspired record of God-breathed words is a radical contradiction to the "scientific" naturalistic presupposition.
> 
> In the most extreme position of the modern camp the God of the Bible has been rejected in favor of some kind of process whereby men and religions have developed. The failure of the otherwise godly men in the Reformed tradition that have adopted the modern critical view has been implicitly beginning with the same world and life view of what would otherwise be their opponents, and then trying to reason their way to a radically different view. It is suicidal.
> 
> They will then try to represent their activities as being "Reformed textual criticism," and postulate that the rationale for departing from the orthodox textual tradition is because of new textual discoveries &c. Hence, they are implying that the only issue separating the "reformed" moderns from the orthodox conservatives is one of ignorance, non-scholarship, or downright simpleton nature of the latter. What they grant with their left hand is taken away by their right.
> 
> The modern critical presupposition assumes the ultimacy of an impartial reason in all men whereby all things can be correctly assessed and adjudicated, without respect to the history and circumstances which Providence brought to pass. It is presumed that Providence is required to maintain the question of Authority for every generation to answer for themselves and hammer out on their own anvil.
> 
> On the contrary, the actual difference concerns an entirely different orientation to the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TsonMariytho said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, it seems to me that TR-only proponents are in a catch-22 situation. If they argue that only one Bible has been used in all the true church over its history, then they must explain why variants exist even in Reformational versions. Reality check -- to my knowledge, nobody in the English or German speaking Reformed world either uses, or has used a Bible identical in readings to Erasmus' edition -- or any other TR edition. The fact is that versions like the KJV freely followed non-TR readings when the translators felt like it was most correct to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not in a catch-22 situation. The question is one of Authority. Ignoring the question and assuming one has a right to be on the playing field because one can run with the ball, doesn't mean it is so. The school has broken into the Church and since it is an institution of learning it arrogantly asserts that it will define the cognitive foundation of theology for the Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TsonMariytho said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if they argue that the variants are minimal, and that small variations don't really count in the grand scheme of things... then I would submit that the CT differs in only minimally in the grand scheme of things, and shouldn't cause anybody undue heartburn with regard to God's preservation of his Word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, once you understand the issues, the disruption to the peace and purity of the Protestant Churches and the decline of orthodoxy that has resulted because of it should terrify you because the Faith is at stake.
> 
> The removal of the landmark of the Protestant Faith from the Protestant Churches and Nations should be as impressed upon your mind as *heinous an injury* as your neighbor moving the landmark of your real property.
> 
> If that happened would you argue that a property line is a property line and it _really_ doesn't matter where it is at?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TsonMariytho said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turning the question on its head a bit, can we ask whether the Westminster Divines believed they had a transcription of the autographs letter for letter? Since they were learned men who knew something about Biblical manuscripts, we can easily reject this nonsensical idea. *Therefore, their meaning in WCF 1.8 surely allows for variants in the text.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kurt Aland said this:
> 
> “We can appreciate better the struggle for freedom from the dominance of the Textus Receptus when we remember that in this period it was regarded as preserving even to the last detail the inspired and infallible word of God himself." (The Text of the New Testament, An Introduction to the Critical Editions, Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland)
> 
> "...it is undisputed that from the 16th century to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed… [the] Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the ‘original’ text.” (Kurt Aland, “The Text of the Church” Trinity journal 8 (1987), p. 131.)
> 
> Apparently, the learned men you respect would probably be insulted at your statement that their beliefs were "nonsensical."
> 
> The history of philosophy has taught us that if we begin with autonomous reason and its doubt, all we finally end up with is doubt. Then you have vague and self-destructive affirmations of faith, no matter how definitively enunciated, ultimately resting in an "unknown" Revelation from God.
> 
> The philosophical presupposition of unknown Revelation from God is what must be rejected. (Acts 17:23)
> 
> Cordially,
> 
> Thomas
Click to expand...


----------



## TsonMariytho

SolaGratia said:


> Andrew,
> 
> So what greek text do you want for the WCF?



Just like TR advocates, I am comfortable with minor variations. However, unlike TR advocates, I believe that the difference between the TR and the mainstream CT's consist only of minor variations.

As such, I'm personally happy for people to use the TR, a Byzantine Majority text, or the various CT's -- and would feel that each person has a copy of the "pure" Word of God, for some acceptable value of "pure". :^) I may feel the CT is a little better, but it's not that much better. Both are very, very good and sufficient to teach us everything we need to know about Jesus and living in his kingdom. The couple odd passages most textual critics believe don't belong there (angels stirring waters and so forth) don't affect major areas of doctrine.

-----Added 12/8/2008 at 09:01:13 EST-----

Thanks for the welcome, Thomas.



Thomas2007 said:


> Apparently, the learned men you respect would probably be insulted at your statement that their beliefs were "nonsensical."



I don't think they believed that they had the text of the autographs letter for letter, word for word. This is a fine distinction we're talking about, but I will contend (until I find out otherwise) that they were aware that even TR printings differed a bit, and that it was possible that the TR needed correction here and there. They were not born yesterday.


----------



## TimV

> Erasmus was very specific in his description of this copy, he believed it to be a very close copy of the Autograph itself and said so explicitly. What is also obscured is the copies Erasmus had access to in Italy, the copies he had in England that he couldn't bring with him to Basel



Thomas, in all that studying you've done on that very specific topic, surely you have names for these Greek manuscripts? Surely you assume those manuscripts he had access to in Italy and England read book instead of tree?

Could you help unobscure them for me? All I want is to be able to look at one of them, or have someone trustworthy you can quote that has looked on them, and to tell me without 15 paragraphs, and in plain language that the wording is book and not tree!

Because if what the guy Steve quoted who quoted another guy is right, then only 2 manuscripts of either major school out of 5000 (or however many of those that contain the last part of Rev which I assume are much fewer) then the chance that Erasmus had on of those is zero.

If he had any full manuscripts of Rev. then they would have said tree and not book, right? Where's the half truth in that? If you can't point to a text in Switzerland, Italy or England that existed at the time which had book instead of tree, then you are reduced to proofs like the Vulgate had it, therefore the overwhelming majority of Greek texts from all traditions are all wrong.

And it comes down to Erasmus being directly inspired. And if he were alive today, I think he would repeat himself, as he was quoted by Roland H. Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969), p. 135:

"You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospels. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. *The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices*."

-----Added 12/8/2008 at 10:40:42 EST-----



> No, once you understand the issues, the disruption to the peace and purity of the Protestant Churches and the decline of orthodoxy that has resulted because of it should terrify you because the Faith is at stake.



That's a pretty bold statement, Thomas. Yesterday one of our pastors preached from a non TR text without any warnings. I say for the third time on this thread do you really understand what you are accusing people of?

A thousand years before Erasmus, Augustine said


> "Those who are anxious to know the Scriptures ought in the first place to use their skill in the correction of the texts, so that the uncorrected ones should give way to the corrected."


On Christian Doctrine (book 2, chap. 14) 
We're not Catholics, and Erasmus wasn't the Pope.


----------



## Prufrock

Since I started this thread, I feel kind of responsible for the direction it takes, so I'm going to chime in once more. Tim, you are painting an inaccurate caricature of the position I asked about in my opening post. No one thinks Erasmus was inspired. No one is against textual criticism. No one disparages consulting diverse manuscripts when there is variance in the received tradition. The saying of Augustine in spot on. Erasmus is not the end-all, be-all of the Received Text: he was a collator, not a creator.

The misrepresentations and misunderstandings have impeded productive conversation. I don't think this type of debate is useful or beneficial. There is a time for proving someone to be wrong, and a time simply for inquiry about that with which we disagree so as to better understand what the other is saying -- and I think you are still missing what I and some others have been saying. I'm sorry I have not been more clear. I understand the critical text position -- I was an advocate thereof for many years, and am not unsympathetic to many of its desires. Keep in mind, the main problem is method, not results: most sober people will confess that the actual _resultant_ differences between the two are nigh unto inconsequential; neither distorts God's word to the point of corruption, and neither opens the doors for heresy, unless we are looking for it already.

Also, keep in mind that no one has accused anyone of anything; with the exception that people are, indeed, disagreeing. This is acceptable. In this sense, I suppose we accuse one another of something with every disagreement we have: we accuse each other of teaching God's word improperly. This is no different than any other disagreement, and is tempered with the realization that we are fallible and can still accept one another in grace and love despite our differences.

(*Important part of post begins now)*
This being said, I still hold to my "I don't know" of my actual, opening question. In terms of method, I am absolutely persuaded that WCF 1.8 is against the purpose, goals and methods of the Critical Text mission. That, for me, is no longer an open issue. However, assuming that one is not a proponent of the Critical Text mission, I am undecided as to certain practical ramifications of this, i.e., whether then strict adherence to the confession requires that (in absence of controversy) the normal preaching of the word in the vernacular is to be translated from the received text (again, only as it is represented as the word of God ). This becomes a strange issue for me as, in most cases, you would have no idea based upon the English translation whether it stems from a version of the received text or of the critical text. I am not convinced fully that the confession requires, in day to day preaching, the use of a TR based translation over the ESV (though, again, I think it clear that in cases of appeal and controversy, the TR is that to which, confessionally, we are to appeal). I _will_ say, at this point, that it at least seems to be _more consistent_ with the confession to use a received-text translation in the day-to-day preaching (with, of course, the allowance that to open and explain passages, variants from outside the TR are free to be used).

How does that sound?


----------



## TimV

> Since I started this thread, I feel kind of responsible for the direction it takes, so I'm going to chime in once more. Tim, you are painting an inaccurate caricature of the position I asked about in my opening post. No one thinks Erasmus was inspired. No one is against textual criticism. No one disparages consulting diverse manuscripts when there is variance in the received tradition. The saying of Augustine in spot on. Erasmus is not the end-all, be-all of the Received Text: he was a collator, not a creator.



I've been trying to bring all this theory down to practice. You and Thomas and others have said that you have studied the matter for a long period of time. Could one of you please, please tell me if Erasmus had access to a Greek text of Revelation that had book instead of tree in chapter 22? 

And as a separate question, could you, Paul, please tell me that if the overwhelming majority of Byzantine texts use the word tree instead of book, and that there is no possible way Erasmus could have read a Greek manuscript of Rev with the word book, would you even consider the possibility that Erasmus could have done better *on that one word*?


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

Textual Criticism is a plot, to drive people back to Rome...She has all the answers, of course, because she comes from the time of the Apostles, and knows all the traditions passed on by them, and obviously has the true word of God in her possession...


----------



## Prufrock

TimV said:


> I've been trying to bring all this theory down to practice. You and Thomas and others have said that you have studied the matter for a long period of time. Could one of you please, please tell me if Erasmus had access to a Greek text of Revelation that had book instead of tree in chapter 22



I've always understood that No, he did not.



TimV said:


> And as a separate question, could you, Paul, please tell me that if the overwhelming majority of Byzantine texts use the word tree instead of book, and that there is no possible way Erasmus could have read a Greek manuscript of Rev with the word book, would you even consider the possibility that Erasmus could have done better *on that one word*?



Of course he could have done better in some of his conclusions. This is not disputed.


----------



## SolaGratia

Duane,

From the New Advent (Catholic Encyclopedia):

(9) It is, therefore, *all the more to be regretted that Nestle's text cannot be recommended to the general Catholic reader*. Not to mention other shortcomings, it places John, v, 4, and vii, 53-viii, 11, among the foot-notes, and represents Mark 16:9-20, together with an alternative ending of the Second Gospel, as a "Western non-interpolation", suggesting that it is an ancient Eastern interpolation of the sacred text. The rules of the new Index enumerate with precision those classes of Catholics who may read texts like that of Nestle; others must content themselves with one or another of the following editions: P.A. Gratz reedited the Complutensian text (Tübingen, 1821; Füs); L. Van Ess published a combination of the Complutensian and the Erasmian text (Tübingen, 1827; Füs); Jaumann adheres closely to the edition of Tittmann (Munich, 1832; Lindauer); we have already mentioned Tischendorf's text prepared for Catholic readers under the influence of I.M. Jager (Paris, 1847, 1851, 1859); Reithmayr produced a combination of this latter edition and that of Lachmann (Munich, 1847; Ratisbon, 1851); V. Loch derived his text, as far as possible, from the Codex Vaticanus (Ratisbon, 1862); Tauchnitz published, with the approbation of the proper ecclesiastical authority of Dresden, Theile's text almost without change, together with the text of the Latin Vulgate; Brandseheid edited the Greek text and the Latin Vulgate of the New Testament in such a way as to bring the former as much as possible into agreement with the latter (Freiburg, 1901, etc.); finally, M. Hetzenauer published his "Novum Testamentum Græce" (Innsbruck, 1904, Wagner), reproducing in separate form the Greek text of his Greek-Latin edition (1896-98). He is more independent of the Vulgate text than Brandscheid, and he adds the more important variants in the margin, or in footnotes, or again in an appendix critica. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Editions of the Bible


----------



## TsonMariytho

The authors of the Encyclopedia are using reverse psychology.


----------



## TimV

> Of course he could have done better in some of his conclusions. This is not disputed.



Thanks Paul. Now, on that *ONE WORD* in that *ONE VERSE*, what objection do you have to my belief that the MT and the CT both more accurately relate the Word of God than the TR?


----------



## TsonMariytho

Prufrock said:


> Keep in mind, the main problem is method, not results: most sober people will confess that the actual _resultant_ differences between the two are nigh unto inconsequential; neither distorts God's word to the point of corruption, and neither opens the doors for heresy, unless we are looking for it already.
> 
> Also, keep in mind that no one has accused anyone of anything; with the exception that people are, indeed, disagreeing. This is acceptable.



I appreciate your irenic spirit, Paul.


----------



## davidsuggs

*No it does not.*

I have not entered college yet so excuse my lack of expertise on the subject. But I think there are other ways of saying the same thing. "My dog is black" and "My four-legged-pet-that-is-a-common-household-pet-and-not-a-cat is the color you get when you mix all the others together" means exactly the same thing, though it is obviously much too complicated to say the latter. If the minister believes the text he is using to refer to exactly what the Westminster Confession says it means, and he teaches it in such a way to his congregation, he is not at odds at all by using the other version. It strikes me the same as refusing to use the word "damn" but using "condemn" instead, while at the same time damning those who do not likewise use "condemn."


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

> All reasonable people who have looked into the matter know that Christ quoted both from the Hebrew and Septuagint. That settles the matter.



Thus saith the Tim!

-------

Hello Andrew,

Welcome aboard. You bring some fresh life to the CT camp!

You said, "...more thoughtful and informed TR advocates...must admit in the end a difference of degree with the critical method." Here are some specs on that:

There are two schools of TR defenders; one says yes, the 1894 TR compiled by Scrivener is absolutely identical with the original autographs due to providential preservation of the text-form by the Lord. The other school, championed by John Owen, Turretin, E.F. Hills, Ted Letis, etc, own minute variants within the TR manuscripts. Hills, for instance, said he’d found 3. So while not “absolute”, it is virtually identical.

The 3 phrases Hills says are errors (_Believing Bible Study_, p. 83) comprise nine Greek words. In the Greek of the Textus Receptus (1894 edition) there are 140,521 words. That is .0064% or *sixty-four one thousandths of one percent.* Compare that with the variance between the Greek of the TR and the Greek of the Westcott and Hort text: 9,970 Greek words are changed. That is 7.095%. This would be equal to having the entire book of Romans (9,447 words) plus 2 and 3 John (and then some) thoroughly changed (usually the changes are omissions)! The uncertainty is 1,108.59 times greater in the Critical Text. (The word count for the TR is from D.A. Waite’s, _Defending The King James Bible_, p. xii)] 

Such a difference, although technically a matter of degree, is actually a difference in kind.

From Dr. Theodore P. Letis’ books, we can see that John Owen (and perhaps Turretin) owned possible minute variants within the TR editions, and their view was that God had allowed them:

This is from Letis’ _The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate_:

Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination, staying within the broad parameters of providential preservation, as exemplified by “Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others.” Within the confines of these editions was “the first and most honest course fixed on” for “consulting various copies and comparing them among themselves.”

This is both the concrete domain of the providentially preserved text, as well as the only area for legitimate comparisons to choose readings among the minutiae of differences. In fact, “God by His Providence preserving the whole entire; suffered this lesser variety [within the providentially preserved editions of the TR –TPL] to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into His Word [for ascertaining the finality of preservation among the minutiae of differences among the TR editions –TPL] (_The Divine Original_, p. 301)* It is the activity, editions, and variants after this period of stabilization that represent illegitimate activity, or, as Owen says, “another way.”

Thus Owen maintained an absolute providential preservation while granting variants. (“John Owen _Versus_ Brian Walton” fn 30, p. 160)​
* Owen’s _Divine Original_ online: DIVINE ORIGINAL, AUTHORITY, SELF-EVIDENCING LIGHT, AND POWER OF THE SCRIPTURES. This is from volume 16 of Owen’s works.

This would be in line with the thinking of Dr. Hills. There is another view – ably defended by Will Kinney, among others – that the King James Bible is without error. And Kinney is no slouch, or fanatic, but an able scholar.

I recently came across an important contribution to this issue of the Textus Receptus (particularly the 1894 of Scrivener) by Will Kinney, in an online article he wrote called, ”Tyndale, the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible?” We do not know the exact manuscripts the translators of the AV 1611 used – the Greek, other language versions, other English versions – and we do not have notes as to the reasons they made what choices they did, I believe because of one of the great London fires, which destroyed such records. What we have is the English version the Lord providentially brought into existence, from the Greek and other mss He provided the Reformation editors and the KJV translators. The Scrivener 1894 TR is but a back-translated Greek text from the English of the AV. We really don’t have a Greek text that is perfect and which we can call “exact”, although by the method of John Owen (noted above) he arrived at “an absolute providential preservation while granting variants”.

Is this not – what Owen referred to – the Greek spoken of in the WCF 1:8? What he had were the TR editions current among the Reformation editors.

What _we_ have, amazingly, is the English rendition from these mss of the Word of God preserved and prepared for His church. I will hold to it. A missing ingredient in these discussions is the factor of God's providential preservation of His word, especially as seen in the King James Bible.

I weary somewhat of defending this point of view, seeing as I have already devoted much time and energy to presenting it, and I am just going over old material and the same old arguments. Not that it is not important to respond to your sincere views, but that I must prioritize my time, seeing as I have a congregation to look after, a wife, sermon prep, and other labors.

Here are a couple of previous presentations:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/what-authentic-new-testament-text-15134/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/answering-alan-kurschner-aomin-24839/

--------

TimV,

You said, "Now, on that *ONE WORD* in that *ONE VERSE*, what objection do you have to my belief that the MT and the CT both more accurately relate the Word of God than the TR?"

I have no objection to your belief; you may believe what you like. I do, however, object to the facticity of your belief.

And these are my objections:

Erasmus did have access to a Greek text of Revelation "that had book instead of tree in chapter 22". That ms was Codex 141 (The manuscript is listed under several call numbers. Under Hoskier’s, Scrivener’s and the Old Gregory classification systems, it is MS 141; under the New Gregory system it is 2049; and under von Soden’s system, it is _w_ 1684. It is located in the Parliamentary Library in Athens).

Because Codex I is missing the last six verses of Rev 22 _today_ gives one no warrant to assume and assert it was missing that last leaf they were on then.

Thomas Holland says of this,

Dr. Hoskier has shown that Greek manuscripts 57 and 141 read with the Latin in stating "book of life" and not "tree of life" as found in Sinaiticus and most other Greek mss. There are, of course, other witnesses to the reading found in the KJV here. For example, the Old Bohairic Coptic version also reads "book of life." Additionally, we have patristic citations from Ambrose (340-397 AD), Bachiarius (late fourth century), and Primasius in his commentary on Revelation in 552 AD. Thus, we have evidence of the KJV reading dating from before the Vulgate and maintained throughout Church history in a variety of geographical locations and various languages.

[from ADVANCED MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE CLASS]​
Dr. Daryl R. Coats says,

There are, however, at least three good reasons to doubt the validity of the story of Erasmus and his mutilated copy of Revelation: 1) the only evidence for it is that the manuscript apparently used by Erasmus for Revelation is missing its last page; 2) Erasmus’s Latin New Testament doesn’t agree with the Latin Vulgate in the last six verses of Revelation (a problem if his Greek text for those verses was derived from the Vulgate); and 3) there exists Codex 141.

H.C. Hoskier spent a lifetime collating every edition of Erasmus’s Greek New Testament, several other printed Greek New Testaments, and almost all of the known Greek manuscripts of Revelation….His study and collation of Revelation in Codex 141 surprised him, because it contained substantially the same text that appears in Erasmus’s Greek New Testament. In Hoskier’s own words:

Upon reaching the end [of Revelation] and the famous final six verses, _supposed to have been re-translated from the Vulgate into Greek by Erasmus_ when Codex I was discovered and found to lack the last leaf: the problem takes on a most important aspect. For if our MS. 141 is _not_ copied from the printed text, then Erasmus would be absolved from the charge for which his memory has suffered for 400 years! [Emphasis in the original]​
In an effort to nullify the testimony of Codex 141, most “scholars” assign the manuscript a “young” age and simply claim that it is a copy of Erasmus’s (or Aldus’s or Colinaeus’s) printed Greek New Testament. But based on his study of the penmanship of the scribe who composed it, Hoskier determined that Codex 141 was executed in the 15th century—well before Erasmus’s Greek New Testament was printed; and based on his study of its contents (and the collation of same), Hoskier determined that MS 141 “has no appearance of being a copy of any [printed edition of the Greek New Testament], _although containing their text_ (Coats’s emphasis). There is, then, manuscript evidence to support the supposed “Erasmian readings”...​
To sum: In bringing Codex 141 to light, Coats has shown this MS has the text Erasmus used. Regarding 141 Coats refers to Hoskier, and I have the latter’s book here in my library, _Concerning The Text Of The Apocalypse_ Vol. 1, and in it I find he has devoted four pages to an examination of Codex 141. In these pages he scrutinizes the MS and determines it was not executed in the 16th century from the printed text of Erasmus, but likely in the 15th (p. 474), and shows “presumptive evidence” the last six verses (of both Erasmus and MS 141) were not copied from the Latin Vulgate (p. 477).

So in terms of evidence, Tim, we are at a stalemate. I cannot produce a copy for you with that one word you desire to see as the page of codex I is missing it (although codex 141 contains it), nor can you deny that it was there, aside from merely assuming so.

But I have more than evidence. I have the faith that God preserved His word through these Reformation texts and that what He sovereignly decreed was realized in our King James Bible. He did preserve His Word for His people.

For you folks interested in the doctrine of God's preservation of His word, I just got a new book (haven't read it yet), _Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture_ (Paperback) by Kent Brandenburg (Editor): Amazon.com: Thou Shalt Keep Them : A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture: Kent Brandenburg, Gary Webb: Books


----------



## TimV

> All reasonable people who have looked into the matter know that Christ quoted both from the Hebrew and Septuagint. That settles the matter.
> 
> Thus saith the Tim!



The last time we went down that path we dealt with the same issue, specifically that all evidence is of equal weight. So you can quote two people, Bruce and Edersheim who mistakenly say that Hebrew and Palestinian Aramaic were the same language (which like the Septuagint being a fraud, is also necessary for the AVer historical position), and I can quote a thousand specialists who say differently, including someone on the board of the Holocaust History Project who specialises in answering racist charges against the Talmud who after reading the thread we were on wrote here
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/mishnaic-hebrew-38281/


> On another thread dealing with whether or not Aramaic and Hebrew were dialects of each other, support for this theory was given by a citation from F.F. Bruce in his NICNT commentary on Acts (Revised) In distinguishing between the two parties,, says of the Jews,
> 
> 
> Quote:
> ..the Hebrews spoke Aramaic (or Mishnaic Hebrew) and attended synagogues where the service was conducted in Hebrew. (p.120)
> 
> As one of my favorite hobbies is languages, that quote bothered me, as it goes against what I though I'd learned about the subject of which languages were spoken in Palestine during the time of Christ. So I asked a friend, Dr. Andrew Mathis of Villanova University, and he said
> 
> 
> Quote:
> While I know Wikipedia is not the best possible source, note that Hebrew (a Canaanite language) and Aramaic are in different subdivisions. The other Canaanite languages are all dead languages, but I've seen enough of them (particularly in recent commentaries I've read) to see that they're related but unlike Hebrew in most ways.
> 
> That being said, there are numerous loan words from Hebrew into Judeo-Aramaic and back again.
> 
> But we also know that Jesus spoke Aramaic in the Galilee, whereas Hebrew was probably more spoken in Judea. Neither language was being spoken as much as Greek, however. In fact, I seem to recall that Hebrew was pretty much strictly a liturgical language after the Babylonian Captivity... I don't see much indicating that Aramaic and Hebrew are the same in any dialectic way. I think the guy you're debating is seeing the parenthetical phrase "(or Mishnaic Hebrew)" as an indication that it's a synonym for Palestinian Aramaic. It isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Upon looking into the subject further, I think Bruce must be confusing Mishnaic Hebrew with Amoric Hebrew. "Amoric" and "Amaraic" look much the same, but have different meanings. Amoric is a form of Hebrew taught by amora i.e. a class of teachers.
> 
> Palestine at the time was quadralingual, with Latin, Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew spoken by different demographics. None of these languages are dialects of each other. Hebrew and Aramaic have about the same relation as Latin and Greek.
> 
> Hebrew was mainly a liturgical language, and varied some over the centuries just like English. The language of the Jew was in no area Hebrew, but varied by where the Jews lived, just like today, with the average Iranian Jew having spoken Parsi for the last few thousand years, American Jews speaking English, Russian Jews speaking Yiddish or Russian, etc...but all of them having access to books written in Hebrew and scholars among them who speak Hebrew
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


And now we go down the same path. You pull up someone who claims Erasmus had a Greek text of Rev 22:19 and offer it as evidence equivalent to those dozens who said he did not. And it comes down to 



> So in terms of evidence, Tim, we are at a stalemate. I cannot produce a copy for you with that one word you desire to see as the page of codex I is missing it (although codex 141 contains it), nor can you deny that it was there, aside from merely assuming so.
> 
> But I have more than evidence. I have the faith that God preserved His word through these Reformation texts and that what He sovereignly decreed was realized in our King James Bible. He did preserve His Word for His people.


In other words a statement of faith that allows you to interpret historical events backwards. "Erasmus must have had one because he must have had God's entire Word". So when it comes to objectice evidence, who's doin' the "saith"?

So Paul, if you're still with us, could you please tell me if in that ONE WORD the CT and MT you fault me for believing God's Word is more likely accurately recorded than in the AV.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello TimV,

I appreciate your graciousness in your last post.

You said,



> ...you can quote two people, Bruce and Edersheim who mistakenly say that Hebrew and Palestinian Aramaic were the same language



I don't know why you're kicking that dead horse. I thought we put it to rest. The disparity of our views (as well Edersheim and the others I quoted) arises simply from the different usages of the word "dialect". Given this, I admitted that you were right according to the definition you used.

It can mean dialect, a variation of the same language, or dialect, another language entirely, though having a common derivation. Edersheim used the latter, while you thought he used the former.

Definitions:

“There are no universally accepted criteria for distinguishing _languages_ from _dialects_, although a number of paradigms exist, which render sometimes contradictory results. The exact distinction is therefore a subjective one, dependent on the user's frame of reference.” Apple computer dictionary

“One of a group of closely related languages. _Ex. Some of the dialects descended from the Latin language are French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese._” World Book Dict.​
------"

This "someone who claims Erasmus had a Greek text of Rev 22:19" is Herman C. Hoskier, one of the foremost authorities on the Greek manuscripts available containing the Book of Revelation. Those "dozens who said he did not" are merely surmising, which Hoskier did not do. Codex 141 exists, and accord to this expert who examined it, existed before Erasmus published his NT.

When I said,

I have the faith that God preserved His word through these Reformation texts and that what He sovereignly decreed was realized in our King James Bible. He did preserve His Word for His people.​
You say of my view, it is "a statement of faith that allows you to interpret historical events backwards."

I would rather put it, I operate on the presupposition that God promised to preserve His word, and would keep that promise:

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matt 24:35)

"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by *every word* that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matt 4:4)​
Seeing as it is written that His people must live by every word that proceeds out of His mouth, he would by His divine power give us "all things that pertain unto life and godliness" (2 Pet 1:3).

Having studied and considered the matter, I hold that the place He finalized His providential preservation was in the English Bible that came out of the Reformation and its Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

There is some truth to what you say. I do interpret historical events in retrospect. Is this not the way we often discern the fulfillment of prophesy?

Steve


----------



## TimV

The horse is by no means dead. Your original reason for bringing up the subject had to do with Christ quoting the Septuagint. You made the fanciful claim that Christ wouldn't have quoted the Septuagint because He wouldn't have spoken to His people in a foreign language, and you quoted Edersheim



> If Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been spoken by most in the land, the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic. It seems strange that this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms.


And that SHOULD be the dead horse, as one of your own posted in this very thread, complaining about me bringing it up


> Hardly. You constantly mis-represent the KJV position by citing Gail Riplinger and the other weirdo's views. That isn't even close to the real reason we use the KJV. The Septuagint is real. Deal with it. And quite mis-representing and slandering us KJV people. Please. - Grymir


If you are going to continue to use the word dialect to mean anything you want to, then informed dialogue isn't possible. You wrote



> Speaking of the situation in Acts 6:1ff., “...the murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews”, Cloag says,
> 
> ...the Hellenists, then are contrasted with the Hebrews as regards language. As the Hebrews are those Jews who spoke the Hebrew language, or rather the dialect of it then current, the Aramaic—the Palestinian Jews; so the Hellenists are those Jews who, residing chiefly in foreign parts, had lost the use of their native Hebrew, and spoke the Greek language—the Hellenistic Jews.
> In distinguishing between the two parties, F.F. Bruce in his NICNT commentary on Acts (Revised), says of the Jews,
> 
> ...the Hebrews spoke Aramaic (or Mishnaic Hebrew) and attended synagogues where the service was conducted in Hebrew. (p.120)
> --------
> 
> Re Mishnaic Hebrew:
> 
> “... From 1200 bc to c. ad 200, Hebrew was a spoken language in Palestine, first as biblical Hebrew, then as Mishnaic Hebrew, a later dialect that does not derive directly from the biblical dialect and one that gained literary status as the Pharisees began to employ it in their teaching in the 2nd century...” Britannica Online Encyclopedia
> 
> “The Mishnaic Hebrew language or Rabbinic Hebrew language is the ancient descendant of Biblical Hebrew as preserved by the Jews after the Babylonian captivity, and definitively recorded by Jewish sages in writing the Mishnah and other contemporary documents.” Nation Master Encyclopedia
> “The term Mishnaic Hebrew refers to the Hebrew dialects found in the Talmud, excepting quotations from the Hebrew Bible. The dialects can be further sub-divided into Mishnaic Hebrew (also called Tannaitic Hebrew, Early Rabbinic Hebrew, or Mishnaic Hebrew I), which was a spoken language, and Amoraic Hebrew (also called Late Rabbinic Hebrew or Mishnaic Hebrew II), which was a literary language.” Wiki
> 
> -------
> 
> J.A. Alexander, in his Geneva Series (BOT) commentary on Acts, distinguishes between the Hebrews and the Grecians and says,
> 
> ...the Hebrews, or natives of Palestine and others...used the scriptures, and spoke the Aramaic dialect before described (on 1:19). (p. 242)
> Commenting on that verse (Acts 1:19) he speaks of the phrase “proper tongue” (AV),
> 
> ...i.e., their own language or peculiar dialect, an Aramaic modification or corruption of the Hebrew spoken by the Jews from the time of their captivity in Babylon, and often called by modern writers, Syro-Chaldaic... (p. 28)
> John Gill on “proper tongue” in this verse says,
> 
> ...or in their own dialect, the Jerusalem dialect, which was now Chaldee, or Syriac... (Exposition, vol 8, p. 144)



Which is a compilation of contradictions and mistakes mishmashed together to try to prove that Christ wouldn't have spoken to His people in a foreign language.

Let's take another (and I hope it will soon become a dead horse, but cherished beliefs die hard) look at Aramaic vs. Amoraic.

Points for discussion.

1.My claim is that Aramaic is a separate language from Amoraic. I make objection to you, Steve throwing them together as support for your AV only position. Notice Cloag, in blue calls Aramaic "Mishnaic Hebrew". Yet the Wiki article you cite, in blue after the red, uses Amoraic instead of Aramaic. Either the words mean the same thing, or there is a major contradiction in the very proof you put together.

Now, while I'm waiting for Paul to tell me if he has objections to me believing tree more accurately expresses the Word of God than book in Rev 22, could someone who clicked his thanks on your last post please do a little bit of research and FIND OUT WHAT ARAMAIC and AMORAIC mean? 'Cause of Aramaic is as foreign to Hebrew as Arabic and Amoraic is the then modern form of Hebrew uses by the Amora, or class of teachers, then we have a problem with the quality of your evidence. 

I will be very interested to see what comes up. Please, one point at a time! Thanks.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Jerusalem Blade said:


> The other school, championed by John Owen, Turretin, E.F. Hills, Ted Letis, etc, own minute variants within the TR *manuscripts*. Hills, for instance, said he’d found 3. So while not “absolute”, it is virtually identical.
> 
> The 3 phrases Hills says are errors (Believing Bible Study, p. 83) comprise nine Greek words. In the Greek of the Textus Receptus (1894 edition) there are 140,521 words. That is .0064% or sixty-four one thousandths of one percent.


_(My emph, "manuscripts" above seems to be a typo, and should read "printed editions" or similar.)_

Observation -- the above and the quote from John Owen are not talking about Scrivener's KJV-tuned TR. According to Scrivener's own count, he had 190 differences versus Beza's text (from the intro to his edition).

Here's a question for the gentlemen who are TR advocates in this discussion: If a publishing organization, let's say TBS, issued an English translation of the scriptures that was equal in quality and style to the KJV, yet adhered strictly to the pre-Scrivener TR, would you use it?

Somehow, I don't suspect that you would. As discussion on this thread has repeatedly revealed, it's not about the TR -- it's about the KJV. If English speaking TR advocates truly accepted that the pre-Scrivener TR was the perfect and complete word of God, then the KJV would have been revised to conform to the TR a long time ago, instead of the other way around.

If the pre-Scrivener TR is the perfect and complete Word of God, then the following verse portion doesn't belong in your Bibles:

1Jn 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. _[Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.]_​
The bracketed sentence above doesn't occur to my knowledge in the TR prior to Scrivener's work. Oddly enough, the inclusion of the sentence is not questioned in translations based on the critical text. :^) But that is not our concern right now...

Are you gentlemen willing for that sentence to be struck from your Bibles? Would you like to take a magic marker and strike it out right now? If so, then why hasn't that removal been performed in the various KJV revisions that have taken place over the years? If not, then where was that sentence when Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, and the Elzivirs were typesetting their editions?

My conclusion -- the TR advocates I've met do not truly regard the historical TR as our nearest approach to the autographs. Rather, they advocate the TR secondarily to advocating the text of the KJV translation.


----------



## Prufrock

Tim, sorry for my tardiness: call me a heretic, but yes, I like "tree." Don't most present TR editions say tree anyway?

My concept of preservation may not be as strict as some; and I am certainly all for comparing our received text with the early codices, versions, lectionaries, etc. I absolutely reject, however, throwing out the TR as impure and so attempting to _reconstruct_ the autographs based upon human reason. We have the apographs; God has preserved them. But there are variants.

Andrew,

I'm not a KJV advocate. This has nothing to do with my views.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Prufrock said:


> Andrew,
> 
> I'm not a KJV advocate. This has nothing to do with my views.



OK. Sorry for lumping all TR advocates together. But I believe you would be the exception within your wider camp if you do not prefer Scrivener's TR edition to Beza's. (Out of curiosity, which do you prefer?)


----------



## TimV

> Tim, sorry for my tardiness: call me a heretic, but yes, I like "tree." Don't most present TR editions say tree anyway?


Hi Paul. No, they use "book". I just checked my copy of Stephanus (assuming you don't count a modern TR version that was back translated from the KJV to be an authentic TR) to check out what Tson said here


> If the pre-Scrivener TR is the perfect and complete Word of God, then the following verse portion doesn't belong in your Bibles:
> 
> 1Jn 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. [Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.]
> The bracketed sentence above doesn't occur to my knowledge in the TR prior to Scrivener's work. Oddly enough, the inclusion of the sentence is not questioned in translations based on the critical text.


And he is correct. The KJV added to the TR in 1Jn 2:23. I just checked the Vulgate


> 23 Omnis qui negat Filium, nec Patrem habet: qui confitetur Filium, et Patrem habet


And it seems another one of those 80 examples where the authors of the KJV preferred the Vulgate to the TR.


----------



## Prufrock

> OK. Sorry for lumping all TR advocates together. But I believe you would be the exception within your wider camp if you do not prefer Scrivener's TR edition to Beza's. (Out of curiosity, which do you prefer?)



First, just a side note, to prefer Scrivener's Text does not mean that, with respect to translations, you have an _a priori_ commitment to the AV. What it _does_ mean, is that you think the the translators of the AV are a good witness to the state of the Greek text as it was received in 1611.

However, to answer your question: neither. Let's just say I use a wide assortment of texts.

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 11:22:12 EST-----

Last statement before I pull out again (since I have been lately rethinking my _confessional_ understanding of this, I don't want to say or advocate anything of which I am not fully convinced, so I just won't say anything further at all):

What I have been advocating is perhaps different than others here, and I'm sure they don't want to be lumped together with me. I presently hold a very moderate position, one that allows difference with the Received Text. As I have stated many times before, that to which I am opposed is the rejection of the received text, claiming that it has been corrupted, and rationally attempting to reconstruct the autographs from early sources. I am against this. I am not against using these sources, however, to compare with the Received Text and, perhaps, to modify it. I have held that the TR is preserved that it can be called the authoritative word of God, free from corruption, and we ought to trust God's preservation; I don't, however, think that this requires it to be above _evidential_ emendation. Thus, I have been perfectly fine saying "Yes, I think tree has advantage over book." However, I shall now withdraw, not wanting to say and be committed to anything to which I might later take objection. This seems safer than arguing in murky territory in which I am not sure where the boundaries fall.

Grace and peace,


----------



## TsonMariytho

Prufrock said:


> First, just a side note, to prefer Scrivener's Text does not mean that, with respect to translations, you have an _a priori_ commitment to the AV. What it _does_ mean, is that you think the the translators of the AV are a good witness to the state of the Greek text as it was received in 1611.



The KJV was not a translation 100% "from scratch"; it was a new revision with many significant improvements of a previous English "translation tradition". And as Scrivener notes in the intro to his edition, in the areas where the KJV departs from Beza's edition to follow Tyndale etc., we simply don't know the translators' reasoning, or whether they were following any Greek witnesses at all on those diversions. He further notes that some of the text doesn't match any of the obvious Greek edition suspects very closely, but looks a lot like the Vulgate.

So if you accept Scrivener's evaluation, you must place your trust not only in the Greek manuscript savviness of the KJV translators, but also that of Tyndale etc. -- without knowing their sources for sure (Scrivener didn't, and I don't think we do today, either).



Prufrock said:


> However, to answer your question: neither. Let's just say I use a wide assortment of texts.



Fair enough.

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 11:32:51 EST-----



TimV said:


> And he is correct. The KJV added to the TR in 1Jn 2:23. I just checked the Vulgate
> 
> 
> 
> 23 Omnis qui negat Filium, nec Patrem habet: qui confitetur Filium, et Patrem habet
> 
> 
> 
> And it seems another one of those 80 examples where the authors of the KJV preferred the Vulgate to the TR.
Click to expand...


I was about to suggest that they probably got the above from Tyndale rather than (directly) from the Vulgate... but I just checked Tyndale, and it omits the KJV phrase.

So you may very well be right that they got it from the Vulgate.

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 11:40:56 EST-----

Ah ha! The Bishop's Bible includes the phrase, and apparently sets it in different type to denote it as questionable (as does the KJV). I didn't see a facsimile, but here's the digital transcription:

23 Whosoeuer denyeth the sonne, the same hath not the father [But he that knowledgeth the sonne, hath the father also.]​


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Well, my browser just crashed and I lost my detailed reply to both Tim and Andrew (an hour and a half of work), so I'll give but a few short answers here.

Tim, you said, "My claim is that Aramaic is a separate language from Amoraic." I thoroughly agree with this.

You also say, "Yet the Wiki article you cite, in blue after the red, uses Amoraic instead of Aramaic." Not true. It distinguishes between Mishnaic / Tannaitic Hebrew and Amoric. The latter was extant from 200-500 CE, the former 70-200 CE. I believe FF Bruce was identifying Mishnaic with Aramaic (an interesting article on this). I see no contradiction, though I'm sorry my bringing it in caused confusion.

Tim, when you say, "Christ quoted the Septuagint", what are you saying? I want to understand. That He quoted from the Greek OT (Septuagint) and translated it into Aramaic or Hebrew? Or that He quoted it and spoke it directly into Greek?

Are you simply not accepting there are different definitions for "dialect"?

-------

Andrew,

Ok, "editions" is fine -- though when I have printed a book, and before final publication, I call it a manuscript. But editions may be more precise here.

Regarding the phrase in 1 John 2:23, "[_but_] _he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also_", and your suggestion that AV advocates mark it out with a magic marker; why should I do that? As it is in italics (or in other TR versions, brackets) the translators meant us to know it was not in the text, but supplied. I need not cross something out that was never in!

Which "historical TR" would you suggest we use to approach the autographs? That would be a retrograde move. We do not have the knowledge of what they used where (as I noted above), though we have the final result in their English translation. We understand from the English somewhat the choices they made, and the 1894 Scrivener helps in that.

When evolutionists and atheists bring their scientific reasons and supposed evidences for their model of origins, it is because of my presuppositions that I do not heed them. And these presuppositions are, God has spoken and revealed the truth about creation, and His Word is true, without error. Likewise He has spoken about the inspiration and preservation of His Book, our Bible. Why should I not believe Him when He has said He would ensure that which we need to live: "every word" that proceeds out of His mouth? Can the great Sovereign not do that? Must I succumb to the cr-p-shoot of choices given me by the text critics? This is what _they_ say,


“In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of van Soden, we do not know the original form of the gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall” (Kirsopp Lake, _Family 13, The Ferrar Group_, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1941, p. vii).

“…it is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered” (R.M. Grant. “The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch,” _Journal of Biblical Literature_, vol. 66, 1947, p. 173).

“…the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that skepticisim which inclines towards regarding ‘the original text’ as an unattainable mirage” (G. Zuntz, _The Text of the Epistles_, 1953, p. 9).

“…every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that we simply do not know how to make a definitive determination as to what the best text is; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alternation of the text in the first few centuries; and accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default” (Eldon J. Epp, “The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” _Journal of Biblical Literature_, Vol. 43, 1974, pp. 390-391).

“…we no longer think of Westcott-Hort’s ‘Neutral’ text as neutral; we no longer think of their ‘Western’ text as Western or as uniting the textual elements they selected; and, of course, we no longer think so simplistically or so confidently about recovering ‘the New Testament in the Original Greek.’…We remain largely in the dark as to how we might reconstruct the textual history that has left in its wake—in the form of MSS and fragments—numerous pieces of a puzzle that we seem incapable of fitting together. Westcott-Hort, von Soden, and others had sweeping theories (which we have largely rejected) to undergird their critical texts, but we seem now to have no such theories and no plausible sketches of the early history of the text that are widely accepted. What progress, then have we made? Are we more advanced than our predecessors when, after showing their theories to be unacceptable, we offer no such theories at all to vindicate our accepted text?” (Eldon J. Epp, “A Continuing Interlude in NT Textual Criticism,” _Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism_, (Eerdman’s, 1993), pp. 114, 115).​
Why _in the church_ am I hassled and ridiculed for believing the Lord did what He promised? The trickle-down effect from the text critics is slowly affecting the grass-root believers, and we shall see the terrible results of our no longer having a sure Word of God acknowledged among us. Is not the widespread apostatizing apparent? The antichrist spirit is coming in like a flood, and where is the Standard to be raised against him?

Ours is a supernatural faith, from beginning to end. I need not trust in men's scientific methodology to ascertain the "pure text" of the Bible among the manuscripts. It is an industry, with big money in it, out of the precincts of God's domain, the church. Even in the church, academia with its rationalism has infiltrated the holy place where Scripture resides, and has brought its secular presuppositions to bear upon it, changing and "improving" what the Lord deposited among us to guard and preserve at the time of our Reformation.

Let His Word be true, and men be liars.


----------



## TimV

> You also say, "Yet the Wiki article you cite, in blue after the red, uses Amoraic instead of Aramaic." Not true.


Yes, it does.


> It distinguishes between Mishnaic / Tannaitic Hebrew and Amoric. The latter was extant from 200-500 CE, the former 70-200 CE. I believe FF Bruce was identifying Mishnaic with Aramaic (an interesting article on this). I see no contradiction, though I'm sorry my bringing it in caused confusion.


The only confusion is that you still don't understand what you are arguing, and that includes the link you just posted. If you will read the link you just posted, you will find the author says

Hebrew morphed into several dialects. One became common, Mishnaic Hebrew, which became the language of the people. Then came a series of devistating wars. Mishnaic Hebrew became extinct as a spoken language. Aramaic, a totally different language with lots of loan words from Mishnaic Hebrew and some Greek took it's place. So at the time of Christ there were three separate languages in Judea and Palestine, Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.



> Tim, when you say, "Christ quoted the Septuagint", what are you saying? I want to understand.


One thing at a time, or we'll never get anywhere!! Until either I can see that your source F.F. Bruce was right, or until you can see that your source F.F. Bruce was totally, massively wrong when he wrote


> In distinguishing between the two parties, F.F. Bruce in his NICNT commentary on Acts (Revised), says of the Jews,
> 
> ...the Hebrews spoke Aramaic (or Mishnaic Hebrew) and attended synagogues where the service was conducted in Hebrew.





> Are you simply not accepting there are different definitions for "dialect"?


Let's get this F.F. Bruce deal cleared up first. Aramaic was either Mishnaic Hebrew as he (and of course if you troll the internet all day and read reams of IFB literature you'll find others that say the same) says, or if Mishnic Hebrew isn't in any way, shape or form Aramiac like the overwhelming number of people who study the subject say. The only way Bruce could be correct according to virtually all of current orthodox and secular thought is if Bruce meant that the Jews spoke EITHER Mishnaic Hebrew which was also called Amoraic Hebrew OR Aramaic.


----------



## MW

Prufrock said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> For this you might be interested in his plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Sorry this is off topic) Are you familiar with the fourth edition of his work compiled by Edward Miller? If so, is it worth it, or is its only value in cataloging modern work, thus making more recent works more worthwhile?
Click to expand...


I've only had access to a 2nd edition, which I was able to print out from online. I find Scrivener's work to be valuable because it shows a commitment to a detailed comparative criticism prior to the advent of reconstructive theories which only follow one or two mss.


----------



## Prufrock

Valuable work indeed. I have the third edition, but I've heard that the fourth (edited by Miller) is vastly expanded; but alas, I've never been able to find a copy.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings Andrew:

Welcome aboard. It is good to see you come over from the CRTA forums which have been shut down. I hope your stay here is profitable.

First, I think it important to note that the TR is simply a compilation of the Byzantine Text type. Providential Preservation is found in the Byzantine MSS, and is not the sole domain of a compilation based on the Byzantine Family of texts. Thus, there will be minor differences between the compilations of Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, and, yes, even Scrivener. I believe that this is what Owen was driving at when he wrote:



> Thirdly, We add, that the whole Scripture, entire as given out from God, without any loss, is preserved in the copies of the originals yet remaining; *what varieties there are among the copies themselves shall be afterward declared*


Note: in the bold text above it is clear that Owen is not referring to a compiliation, like Beza's, but to the extant copies within the Byzantine tradition. Owen continues:



> In them all, we say, is every letter and tittle of the word. These copies, we say, are the rule, standard, and touchstone of all translations, ancient or modern, by which they are in all things to be examined, tried, corrected, amended; and themselves only by themselves.


The fundamental precept that is driving Owen at this point is that the very copies that Erasmus and others used for compiling the New Testament contained the autographs. That the compilation which Erasmus used was not perfect was obvious - even to Erasmus - who made 5 other editions over the course of the next 15 years or so. That Stephens, Beza, and Scrivener sought to build and improve upon the work of Erasmus within the Byzantine MSs are examples of healthy text-critical efforts within the "TR" tradition. Owen then speaks about translations:



> Translations contain the word of God, they are the word of God, perfectly or imperfectly, according as they express the words, sense, and meaing of those originals


Now, by "translations" here, are you willing to admit that Owen is speaking about the King James Version, which was a translation in existence during this time? Owen then criticizes what you may label as the KJO movement:



> To advance any, all translations concurring, into an equality with the originals, - so to set them by it as to set them up with it on even terms, - much more to propose and use them as means of castigating, amending, altering any thing in them, gathering various lections by them, is to set up an altar of our own by the altar of God, and to make equal the wisdom, care, skill, and diligence of men, with the wisdom, care, and providence of God himself, John Owen, Works, vol. 16, pg. 357.


In reading your posts it seems that you want to lump all those who would defend the Greek Text (TR) with those who would defend the translation found in the King James Version. I noted that, when pressed, you will admit a difference, but then you come right back to this line of thinking when you ask and answer your own question:



> Here's a question for the gentlemen who are TR advocates in this discussion: If a publishing organization, let's say TBS, issued an English translation of the scriptures that was equal in quality and style to the KJV, yet adhered strictly to the pre-Scrivener TR, would you use it?
> 
> Somehow, I don't suspect that you would.


I would not use it either in preaching, or, as a primary text, but not for the reasons you suppose. The Bible is the sole treasure of the Church. To put its translation into the hands of a "publishing organization" a "corporation" or in a para-Church organization (such as a Bible society - whose charter was to print and distribute the Bible, and not make a translation), is to take the Bible out of the hands of the Church, and make it a marketing tool to enrich the pockets of men like Rupert Murdoch (owner of the NIV). For this same reason the RSV (being authorized by a denomination that is no longer a church) is not authoritative as well. The ESV (published not by the Church, but by Crossway Books) also falls into the category of being non-authorized. The NASB, as it is a product of the Lockman Foundation, does not fit the criteria as well.

Theodore Letis ably defends these ideas in his book, The Ecclestical Text.

In reviewing the rest of your argumentation it appears that you seem to equate Scrivener's Greek NT with the translation of the KJV. Consequently, you then try to equate those who would defend the "TR" with those who would defend the KJV:



> My conclusion -- the TR advocates I've met do not truly regard the historical TR as our nearest approach to the autographs. Rather, they advocate the TR secondarily to advocating the text of the KJV translation


But you rightly pointed out that Owen, Turretin, and others were not defending Scrivener's Greek Text? And, I believe I made it clear above, that Owen was not seeking to defend a translation, but the Byzantine MSS which contained the apographia of the autographs.

As I mentioned to you on the other forum - you have been reading too much James White. I believe that Pastor Winzer has also pointed out to you that you need to read more concerning the TR before you can become an able critic of it.

Blessings,

Rob



TsonMariytho said:


> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> 
> The other school, championed by John Owen, Turretin, E.F. Hills, Ted Letis, etc, own minute variants within the TR *manuscripts*. Hills, for instance, said he’d found 3. So while not “absolute”, it is virtually identical.
> 
> The 3 phrases Hills says are errors (Believing Bible Study, p. 83) comprise nine Greek words. In the Greek of the Textus Receptus (1894 edition) there are 140,521 words. That is .0064% or sixty-four one thousandths of one percent.
> 
> 
> 
> _(My emph, "manuscripts" above seems to be a typo, and should read "printed editions" or similar.)_
> 
> Observation -- the above and the quote from John Owen are not talking about Scrivener's KJV-tuned TR. According to Scrivener's own count, he had 190 differences versus Beza's text (from the intro to his edition).
> 
> Here's a question for the gentlemen who are TR advocates in this discussion: If a publishing organization, let's say TBS, issued an English translation of the scriptures that was equal in quality and style to the KJV, yet adhered strictly to the pre-Scrivener TR, would you use it?
> 
> Somehow, I don't suspect that you would. As discussion on this thread has repeatedly revealed, it's not about the TR -- it's about the KJV. If English speaking TR advocates truly accepted that the pre-Scrivener TR was the perfect and complete word of God, then the KJV would have been revised to conform to the TR a long time ago, instead of the other way around.
> 
> If the pre-Scrivener TR is the perfect and complete Word of God, then the following verse portion doesn't belong in your Bibles:
> 
> 1Jn 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. _[Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.]_​
> The bracketed sentence above doesn't occur to my knowledge in the TR prior to Scrivener's work. Oddly enough, the inclusion of the sentence is not questioned in translations based on the critical text. :^) But that is not our concern right now...
> 
> Are you gentlemen willing for that sentence to be struck from your Bibles? Would you like to take a magic marker and strike it out right now? If so, then why hasn't that removal been performed in the various KJV revisions that have taken place over the years? If not, then where was that sentence when Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, and the Elzivirs were typesetting their editions?
> 
> My conclusion -- the TR advocates I've met do not truly regard the historical TR as our nearest approach to the autographs. Rather, they advocate the TR secondarily to advocating the text of the KJV translation.
Click to expand...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Tim, you say, "The only confusion is that you still don't understand what you are arguing". Interesting. What _is_ it I'm arguing? These rabbit trails into this quote and that quote and differing definitions of various terms are the source of the confusion.

Initially my argument was that Christ didn't quote from the LXX. Then, later, after you focused on Edersheim's use of the word "dialect" (where he meant Aramaic as a distinct and separate language partially derived from Hebrew -- even as it can be said French is a "dialect" of Latin: a distinct language descended from it), where you assumed he meant it was a dialect in a different sense: with minor variations yet still essentially the same language. And we went around on that. You were right that Aramaic was not a dialect in the sense you meant. But Edersheim was right in his differing usage of the word.

And now we have another rabbit trail, Mishnaic, Aramaic, and Amoric. This horse I'm shooting in the head, as it's been fatally overridden, and in its death-throes. What I've written heretofore stands, and what you've written stands. Let the reader ascertain for him or herself the status of our respective arguments. If you want to kick the horse, go ahead. It won't get up, though you might want to keep riding it.

If you don't want to answer my question about what you meant re Christ quoting the LXX, fine. That was the initial topic I was arguing. I did not -- and do not -- appreciate the rabbit trails. Please note, that I do not want to debate the LXX thing again (that having been done substantially), I just wanted clarification of your view.

I do appreciate and like reading your posts; you've been around the block a few times, and bring a rich and varied experience to bear on many topics. We just differ on some things. If we are both brothers in the Spirit of the Savior, and fellow-heirs to the Everlasting Kingdom, then we are kin, and may even be neighbors with mansions near one another in glory.

-------

Friends,

I'm not going to be able to keep posting AV defense material here at PB, not regularly, anyway, as I have already covered so many bases, and it's pointless to keep repeating myself over and over, and not good time management. Plus I have a wife, a church, and a life -- not to mention will be preaching through Revelation (Lord willing) in a month or two, and preparing for that will occupy much of my spare time.

What I will do is compile an index of sorts for many of my posts on various topics here in the "Translations and Manuscripts" forum, and then post that, for the benefit of those who want to avail themselves of my approach to defending the AV.

It is important to be sure in one's own mind and heart that God has provided us with His Word, inspired and preserved intact. When we approach our Savior with His promises in hand, we need to be able to call on Him with confidence that what we have is truly His word, without equivocation.

True, all (evangelical) versions of Scripture are adequately preserved (and there has been this _adequate_ preservation throughout the church age, in varying locations), and sufficient for the saving of souls and the maintaining of churches; my approach goes beyond adequate preservation to preservation in the minutiae. Apparently this is not too popular nowadays, but for some of us it is vital.

Also important to me is that we conduct ourselves as younger brothers and sisters of the Lord Jesus, showing the gracious, gentle and kind spirit that is ours from being united in heart with Him, even in our vigorous debates with one another over momentous issues. I have tried to model that spirit, especially in the Bible version discussions, where folks have been known to go into melt-down, and manifest the other spirit. Remember, we are members of the royal family of Heaven, the house of living stones in which He lives and walks.

For King and Kingdom!

Steve


----------



## TsonMariytho

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings Andrew:
> 
> Welcome aboard. It is good to see you come over from the CRTA forums which have been shut down. I hope your stay here is profitable.



Hey, a familiar "face"! Thanks for the greeting. First brother I've run into here with whom I was already acquainted.

I have to say I really like the folks I've interacted with thus far on these forums. It's really busy, but I'm finding that I like that. The number of people involved should theoretically force eveybody to be a bit more concise, but so far that's remained an elusive goal for me. :^)

You and I have discussed this issue before. Right now I need to focus on not being "worse than an infidel" (earning some food for my family), but I will read your post later, Lord willing.


----------



## TimV

> Thirdly, We add, that the whole Scripture, entire as given out from God, without any loss, is preserved in the copies of the originals yet remaining; what varieties there are among the copies themselves shall be afterward declared





> Note: in the bold text above it is clear that Owen is not referring to a compiliation, like Beza's, but to the extant copies within the Byzantine tradition. Owen continues:



Robert, you're throwing me! When I read the quotes of Owen, it's clear as day he's read either read those quotes from Erasmus and Augustine I posted earlier on this thread. But where did Owen speak about the Byzantine texts? My reading of all three men is such that none of them would advocate a TR only position.

I'd appreciate something from Owen where he spoke about the Byzantine tradition being superior to others. In the mean time, do you think Owen, when confronted with all the Byzantine texts available today would have preferred tree over book in Rev 22? Why or why not, based on his writings.

-----Added 12/10/2008 at 10:51:45 EST-----



> Tim, you say, "The only confusion is that you still don't understand what you are arguing". Interesting. What is it I'm arguing?


You are arguing that


> you focused on Edersheim's use of the word "dialect" (where he meant Aramaic as a distinct and separate language partially derived from Hebrew -- even as it can be said French is a "dialect" of Latin: a distinct language descended from it)


which is necessary when building the complex alternative history that the AVonly position relies on, at least in the extreme form you and Thomas and evidently some others here cling to. You have to believe that, other wise your rhetorical argument "why would Christ speak to a Jewish people in a foreign language" when it comes to Him quoting the Septuagint would fall flat on it's face.

But it is not true. Aramaic didn't descend from Hebrew. You are dead wrong. I've posted from both resources on line, then an expert on the Targum, and now today will post a email I got yesterday from one of the worlds foremost scholars in Aramaic.



> Aramaic and Hebrew are two different, though closely related, languages (say, like English and Frisian). Amoraic Hebrew was a literary type of Hebrew written by native speakers of Palestinian Aramaic. Naturally, Pal.Aram. influenced Amoraic Hebrew, and to some degree vicas versa, but Hebrew and Aramaic were not and are not the same language.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Hezy Mutzafi



Palestinian Aramaic was like Yiddish. The language of the Jews of East and Central Europe. It came down from German, and it totally, without question, mutually unintelligible to speakers of Hebrew. 

You can use dialect if you want. You can claim anything if you want. You can claim that Palestinian Aramaic was a dialect of Hebrew. You can claim that Yiddish is a dialect of Hebrew. But you will be wrong.



> But Edersheim was right in his differing usage of the word.


No, Edersheim was being sloppy, and was wrong. What he said in a moment of sloppiness that you've latched on to because if fits into your alternative history goes against all orthodox scholarship.



> If you don't want to answer my question about what you meant re Christ quoting the LXX, fine.


Again, it will have to wait until you are convinced that Christ spoke to His people in a language that was not even a dialect of Hebrew.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

TimV said:


> Thirdly, We add, that the whole Scripture, entire as given out from God, without any loss, is preserved in the copies of the originals yet remaining; what varieties there are among the copies themselves shall be afterward declared
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: in the bold text above it is clear that Owen is not referring to a compiliation, like Beza's, but to the extant copies within the Byzantine tradition. Owen continues:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Robert, you're throwing me! When I read the quotes of Owen, it's clear as day he's read either read those quotes from Erasmus and Augustine I posted earlier on this thread. But where did Owen speak about the Byzantine texts? My reading of all three men is such that none of them would advocate a TR only position.
> 
> I'd appreciate something from Owen where he spoke about the Byzantine tradition being superior to others. In the mean time, do you think Owen, when confronted with all the Byzantine texts available today would have preferred tree over book in Rev 22? Why or why not, based on his writings.
Click to expand...

Hay Tim:

I think it necessary to point out that the terms "Byzantine," and "Alexandrian," were not terms used in Owen's time to denote the families of MSS that we recognize today. Nevertheless, it was a clear and understood principle that the Greek MSS present during the Reformation fell into two categories: Corrupt and Pure. Scrivener points out that Erasmus was well aware of the copy of the Vaticanus in the Vatican Library:



> The manuscript is first distinctly heard of (for it does not appear to have been used for the Complutensian Polyglot) through Sepulveda to whose correspondence with Erasmus attention has been seasonably recalled by Tregelles ... he furnishes Erasmus with 365 readings as a convincing argument in support of his statements. It would probably be from this list that in his Annotations to the Acts, published 1535, Erasmus cites the reading kauda, ch xxvii. 16 ... from a Greek codex in the Pontifical Library, since for this reading Cod. B is the only known Greek witness, except for a corrector of Cod. Aleph, Scrivener, Frederick Henry, A Plain Introduction To The Criticism of the New Testament, Wipf & Stock, Eugene OR, 1997, vol. 1, pg. 109.


Erasmus was in and out of Rome during the years 1508-1512, and it is very likely that he handled the Vaticanus himself. Scrivener also notes that Erasmus makes a passing comment concerning a text in the Vatican in his annotations on Hebrews 1:3. Such is significant because one of the criticisms of the Vaticanus comes from this very text. Consider:

W. Willker Codex Vaticanus 1209, B/03: A textcritical complaint

The translation does not do justice to the sentiment of the editor - there is the idea of continuation in it. That is, that the scribe of the Vaticanus had tampered with other parts of the text as well. One can easily envision Erasmus opening this text to Hebrews, and coming to the conclusion that it is a corrupted text. The Reformation attitude toward what we call today the Alexandrian MSS were that they were corrupt. This attitude was probably handed down to them through ancient times.

In a letter to Froben it is clear that Erasmus was painfully aware of the very few MSS available to him. Yet, in his first four versions he would not use the Vaticanus. In the fifth edition, as Scrivener notes above, he included one word, and he probably did so in deference to his friend.

In the _Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek_ John Owen is writing against Walton's London Polyglott (a copy of which is available in the Rare Book Room of my Seminary's Library). Owen claims that the Polyglott is very scholarly and useful, but has some reservations concerning it. The Editor of Owen's Works, in a Prefatory note, makes this clear:



> He objected further to the practice of Cappell, in making innovations on the received text by the authority of translations only, on the ground that these translations were made from _copies essentially different from any now extant._ He exonerates Walton from this error, but deems him not sufficiently careful to refrain from admitting into his Polyglott readings gatherered from such a source, ibid, 346.


Text critics of the Critical Text would have us believe that the Alexandrian family of MSS did not appear until the finding of the Sinaticus in the mid 1800's. But such is not the case. The Alexandrian family of MSS were rejected by the Church through all of history because they were deemed corrupt and inferior.

That the Alexandrian MSS are considered older does not free them from the charge of corruption. The Apostle Peter, in the first century, was already pointing out that heretics were corrupting the Word of God:



> As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction, 2 Peter 3:16


It follows that there are ancient texts which have been corrupted by heretics. These texts were known by the Church through all the ages, and were rejected as corrupt. When it came time to copy texts the Church choose to copy the Byzantine MSS - which is why we have 5,000 MSS from the Byzantine family, and only a handful of copies from the Alexandrian family. The Church through all the ages recognized the Byzantine Greek text as the true apographia of the autographs, and not the Alexandrian family.

Thus, when Owen is defending the "originals" as represented in the Received Text he is defending the Byzantine family of MSS even though he may not know the exact wording "Byzantine family."

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TimV

Thanks, Rob, but doesn't tree appear much more often in Byzantine texts than book in Rev. 22:19?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

TimV said:


> Thanks, Rob, but doesn't tree appear much more often in Byzantine texts than book in Rev. 22:19?



Ooops! Missed that point - sorry.

First, contrary to the wishes of the Critical Text editors, Erasmus did not re-translate from the Latin to the Greek the last six verses of Revelation. H.C. Hoskier points out that Erasmus probably used mss 2049 in his translation. See: H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, vol. 2 (London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1929), 644.

Second, the use of minority readings does not go beyond the pale of text criticism - unless you hold exclusively to the Majority Text. The Critical Text itself uses a number of minority readings in its Greek editions. Thus, it is not beyond the scope of even the modern views of textual criticism to use a minority reading such as "book" in Rev. 22.

Since 2049 is a Byzantine text - the use of "book" here may actually be the original reading. To determine the legitimacy of a minority reading one has to look at both internal and external factors.

Sorry, I do not have any more time, but I hope this gives you an idea in answering your inquiry.

In Jesus,

Rob


----------



## TimV

> Second, the use of minority readings does not go beyond the pale of text criticism - unless you hold exclusively to the Majority Text. The Critical Text itself uses a number of minority readings in its Greek editions. Thus, it is not beyond the scope of even the modern views of textual criticism to use a minority reading such as "book" in Rev. 22.



I don't favor any of the texts totally above any of the others, and my understanding is that none of the modern translations rely solely on any of the texts.

So my question is, since we don't really know if Erasmus had a complete text of Rev. or not, and we certainly don't know for sure that he had the word book in front of him, are there any Greek texts of the Byzantine tradition that are older than the text Erasmus hypothetically used? Where can I find some specifics as to number of Byzantine texts that use tree, and the ages of them? There must be someone you can ask at your Seminary.
Thanks
Tim


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

I will look into it and get back to you, but, maybe, Mr. Rafalsky has some information on it?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TsonMariytho

CalvinandHodges said:


> Now, by "translations" here, are you willing to admit that Owen is speaking about the King James Version, which was a translation in existence during this time?



Certainly he was. I don't know which translation he personally preferred, but his statement applies to all translations and I fully agree with his meaning: that a translation is either more or less perfect depending on how well it conforms to the text of the original Hebrew and Greek autographs.



CalvinandHodges said:


> In reading your posts it seems that you want to lump all those who would defend the Greek Text (TR) with those who would defend the translation found in the King James Version.



Well, it is a remarkable coincidence. Scrivener's TR had one rule for its assembly -- that it follow the readings of the KJV as closely as possible from whatever Greek sources could be found to support the KJV. Scrivener admitted that his own opinion of the trustworthiness of a given reading had nothing whatsoever to do with whether a reading was included in his text -- the rule was merely whether a reading followed the KJV.

The purpose of Scrivener's work was not to present a Greek text claimed to be the exact text of the autographs (he didn't make that claim); but rather to facilitate comparison with the RV through his detailed footnotes, a goal at which he succeeded very well.




CalvinandHodges said:


> I would not use it either in preaching, or, as a primary text, but not for the reasons you suppose. The Bible is the sole treasure of the Church. To put its translation into the hands of a "publishing organization" a "corporation" or in a para-Church organization (such as a Bible society - whose charter was to print and distribute the Bible, and not make a translation), is to take the Bible out of the hands of the Church, and make it a marketing tool to enrich the pockets of men like Rupert Murdoch (owner of the NIV). For this same reason the RSV (being authorized by a denomination that is no longer a church) is not authoritative as well. The ESV (published not by the Church, but by Crossway Books) also falls into the category of being non-authorized. The NASB, as it is a product of the Lockman Foundation, does not fit the criteria as well.



The KJV was created by commission and authorization of the King of England. I wonder if you view the English monarch as the lawful head of the Church of England?

Regardless, I view this as an unprofitable subject to quibble about. The KJV has neither closer nor more distant ties to a legitimate church authority than the NIV. It's an arbitrary and meaningless distinction, in my opinion. Far more important is for sound linguistic scholars of the Church to be actively engaged both on translation work, and in evaluating available translations, so that elders can make informed recommendations to their flocks.



CalvinandHodges said:


> In reviewing the rest of your argumentation it appears that you seem to equate Scrivener's Greek NT with the translation of the KJV. Consequently, you then try to equate those who would defend the "TR" with those who would defend the KJV



That was the one rule that determined what readings Scrivener included in his main text. I am at a loss to know how you can disagree with that. If you view a move from the TR of Beza to the TR of Scrivener as a move closer to the autographs, then by definition you endorse the readings of the KJV, or to put it another way of the TR plus the ample list of non-TR readings in the KJV.



CalvinandHodges said:


> But you rightly pointed out that Owen, Turretin, and others were not defending Scrivener's Greek Text? And, I believe I made it clear above, that Owen was not seeking to defend a translation, but the Byzantine MSS which contained the apographia of the autographs.



It is possible for Owen to be mistaken on the subject of which manuscripts are more or less reliable than others.



CalvinandHodges said:


> As I mentioned to you on the other forum - you have been reading too much James White. I believe that Pastor Winzer has also pointed out to you that you need to read more concerning the TR before you can become an able critic of it.



Actually, I think you said I'd been reading too much Metzger. Same difference. :^)

Blessings to you.


----------



## TimV

And now a third noted scholar on whether Edersheim is right or not, Hayim Sheynin.



> Gratz College (emeritus), United States
> Research Interests
> General and Comparative Linguistics, Classical Philology, Slavic Philology, Semitic Philology, Medieval Hebrew Poetry, Genizah Studies, Manuscripts and Paleography, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin Epigraphics, Jewish Languages with Special Attention to Judeo-Romance Languages (in Particular Ladino Texts from 16th to 19th Centuries), Judeo-Aramaic, Judeo-Greek, Indo-European Languages, Semitic Languages, Translations from the Most Indo-European and Semitic Languages, Jewish Studies, Sephardic Studies, Bibliography and Booklore
> Jewish Languages
> Sheynin, H. In press. In Search of the Common Transliteration for the Jewish Languages. In Z. Harvey (ed.), Society and Culture: Papers of the VI International Congress in Sephardi Languages and Literatures. Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim.
> Sheynin, H. 1999. Languages Jewish. In M. Terry (ed.), Reader's Guide to Judaism. Chicago & London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. 356-361.
> Sheynin, H. 1999. Problems in Romanization of Jewish Languages. In B. Y. Leff & L. S. Wolfson (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Convention of the Association of Jewish Libraries. New York: Association of Jewish Libraries. 242. [The paper was too long. Only the summary is published.]


etc....Jewish Language Research Website: Hayim Sheynin



> Thank you for your email. The claims presented to you
> are not true.
> Mishnaic Hebrew is just the post-Biblical Hebrew of
> the Tannaitic period. Since in this period in
> Palestine the spoken vernacular was Western Aramaic
> (in the shape of several dialects like Galilean,
> Judean, etc.) the Mishnaic Hebrew is influenced by
> Aramaic (lexically and syntactically)....I hope this helps,
> 
> Dr. Hayim Y. Sheynin.


and to make double sure, I emailed him back


> Yes, that helps hugely. So am I right in saying the Palestinian dialect of Aramaic can't be called a dialect of Hebrew? RegardsTim





> No, Palestinian dialect of Aramaic is not dialect of
> Hebrew. It is one of dialects of late and middle
> Western Aramaic. The closest dialects are Samaritan
> Aramaic and Nabatean Aramaic.
> 
> The Jews used Palestinian Aramaic for Jerusalem
> Talmud, Midrashim (like Bereshit Rabba), Targumim,
> Tosefta, etc. The early Christians used it for
> translations of Greek Christian books, starting from
> New Testament [it started around 2nd century C.E.],
> sometimes it is called Palestinian Syriac. See works
> of Edward Kutscher, S. Liberman, Michael Sokoloff,
> Christa Muller, etc.
> 
> Hayim Sheynin


----------



## Grymir

Umm, all this language usage (What they spoke in Israel) is fine, but what does it have to do with the TR or the KJV? I'm not getting the connection. (And this isn't a stupid question designed to lead people into a certian answer either)


----------



## TimV

> Umm, all this language usage (What they spoke in Israel) is fine, but what does it have to do with the TR or the KJV? I'm not getting the connection. (And this isn't a stupid question designed to lead people into a certian answer either)



If Christ can be shown to have quoted from two different sets of Texts, namely the Hebrew and Greek Septuagint, which all orthodox scholarship says He did, then the AV position, at least in it's hard core form falls flat on it's face. I'm trying to systematically go through the myths and false information that support the AV position and tackle them one by one. One myth, that Steve and others here, who supports the hard core version of the AV school, have to hold is that Aramaic is a dialect of Hebrew. It's one of the foundation rhetorical proofs that Christ didn't speak to His people in a foreign language, and that's why he insists Edersheim is correct when he wrote:



> If Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been spoken by most in the land, the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic. It seems strange that this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms.



To try to get both an answer to my question of how many Byzantine texts use tree rather than book in Rev. 22:19, and to get a feel for what AVers really hold to when pushed to the logical conclusions of their theories, I joined an AVer discussion forum. There was a question about why new "Bibles" use terebinth rather than oak in Judges 6:11. I thought I'd try to add something to the thread, and I wrote:



> The Hebrew word translated as Oak can mean other trees as well. I notice that the translators of the Septuagint chose the word Terebinth τερέμινθον, which is the native wild Pistachio tree. My experience is that the growth patter of the Terebinth, and it's softer leaves as opposed to an Oak's prickly leaves would make it a better choice for a meeting place, and I dare say that was what the translators of the Septuagint had in mind. Perhaps the AV having been translated in an area where there aren't any Terebinth trees growing was a reason for choosing Oak rather than Terebinth?



An AVer wrote next:



> However, the Septuagint is a farce since there's no proof it was even available until well after the New Testament was penned. In fact, there's really no reason, other than lack of faith in God's word, to even use the Septuagint as more than historical reference.
> 
> ... I'm sure you could understand that an "oak" tree is not a "pistachio" tree. So either 1) you think the King James Bible is wrong, and therefore you have set yourself up as an authority over God's word, or 2) you're playing Devil's advocate, which isn't a very profitable hobby, especially on a board such as this.


another wrote this:


> The site holds that the King James Bible is 100% perfect, and any attempt at deviating from it based on "The Hebrew" or "The Greek" is counter-productive and nothing but a cause of cancer in the body of Christ. The King James Bible is God's final, definitive written word for mankind in English: being produced in the Philadelphian Church Age (the church that was praised for keeping the words of God) is but one of the evidences of the Blessings of God on it. Any translation in any language from any other time period should be carefully considered before accepting it as pure.


I mentioned that the Afrikaans "Old Translation" which is their equivalent of the KJV has a term for terebinth, but they reject the idea that any deviation from the KJV is wrong, even though the translators of the Afrikaans Bible had been living in a similar environment to the Mideast for 300 years and would likely be in a better position than the COD divines on the subject, but I'm sure that is going to get me banned.

*And this mindset is why on the poll this very thread started out with, 22 members of the Puritan board have voted that most of the Elders in the PCA, OPC etc.. who post regularly on this board are in a state of constant and willful violation of their ordination vows.* 

So, before moving on to the next support pillar of the AV only view that the Septuagint was a myth, is there still anyone out there who still believes with Edersheim that



> If Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been spoken by most in the land, *the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic*. It seems strange that this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms.


 ?


----------



## Grymir

Thanks Tim, I'm on my way to work. I'll contemplate all of this and post some more questions, but it may be awhile, I've got 300 hungry doctors comming in to dinner tommorow!


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> Umm, all this language usage (What they spoke in Israel) is fine, but what does it have to do with the TR or the KJV? I'm not getting the connection. (And this isn't a stupid question designed to lead people into a certian answer either)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Christ can be shown to have quoted from two different sets of Texts, namely the Hebrew and Greek Septuagint, which all orthodox scholarship says He did, then the AV position, at least in it's hard core form falls flat on it's face. I'm trying to systematically go through the myths and false information that support the AV position and tackle them one by one. One myth, that Steve and others here, who supports the hard core version of the AV school, have to hold is that Aramaic is a dialect of Hebrew. It's one of the foundation rhetorical proofs that Christ didn't speak to His people in a foreign language, and that's why he insists Edersheim is correct when he wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been spoken by most in the land, the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic. It seems strange that this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To try to get both an answer to my question of how many Byzantine texts use tree rather than book in Rev. 22:19, and to get a feel for what AVers really hold to when pushed to the logical conclusions of their theories, I joined an AVer discussion forum. There was a question about why new "Bibles" use terebinth rather than oak in Judges 6:11. I thought I'd try to add something to the thread, and I wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> An AVer wrote next:
> 
> 
> another wrote this:
> 
> 
> 
> The site holds that the King James Bible is 100% perfect, and any attempt at deviating from it based on "The Hebrew" or "The Greek" is counter-productive and nothing but a cause of cancer in the body of Christ. The King James Bible is God's final, definitive written word for mankind in English: being produced in the Philadelphian Church Age (the church that was praised for keeping the words of God) is but one of the evidences of the Blessings of God on it. Any translation in any language from any other time period should be carefully considered before accepting it as pure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mentioned that the Afrikaans "Old Translation" which is their equivalent of the KJV has a term for terebinth, but they reject the idea that any deviation from the KJV is wrong, even though the translators of the Afrikaans Bible had been living in a similar environment to the Mideast for 300 years and would likely be in a better position than the COD divines on the subject, but I'm sure that is going to get me banned.
> 
> *And this mindset is why on the poll this very thread started out with, 22 members of the Puritan board have voted that most of the Elders in the PCA, OPC etc.. who post regularly on this board are in a state of constant and willful violation of their ordination vows.*
> 
> So, before moving on to the next support pillar of the AV only view that the Septuagint was a myth, is there still anyone out there who still believes with Edersheim that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been spoken by most in the land, *the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic*. It seems strange that this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?
Click to expand...


Are you labeling all of those who voted 'yes' on this poll as 'hard core AVers'? Or are you speaking strictly of Mr. Rafalsky?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

This is not a true statement by TimV:

One myth, that Steve and others here, who supports the hard core version of the AV school, have to hold is that Aramaic is a dialect of Hebrew.​
The statement by Edersheim about Aramaic being a dialect of ancient Hebrew is incidental and not related the point I was making. Nor do I in any way have to hold that to support my position re the AV.

It certainly is not, as Tim says,

one of the foundation rhetorical proofs that Christ didn't speak to His people in a foreign language​
I don't see how it follows that the status of Aramaic being a dialect of Hebrew or not bears on the issue of Christ not speaking Greek / quoting the Septuagint to the Jewish leaders and rabbis. Aramaic was _not_ a foreign language to the Jewish people, not since their exile in Babylon and the time of Ezra. It was the normal language of the Palestinian Jews, while Hebrew was the language of the synagogue. Although Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, and spoken by most in Palestine, it was not the language of the synagogue or of the Pharisees, nor would Christ have addressed them in that tongue. If there had been a synagogue of the Hellenistic Jews He had been to, He could have, but that is mere speculation, as we have no mention of it in the Scripture.

To the Jewish leaders Hebrew was the tongue spoken in synagogue and temple; if the Hebrew Scriptures were read they were "targumed" (translated) into the Aramaic so those who didn't speak Hebrew could understand. This is my position. Don't misrepresent it. My quote of Edersheim was to show his view that Christ did not use Greek to make His Messianic claim upon Israel. Deal with that, and not with extraneous issues.

Incidentally, Edersheim is not the only commentator to use the expression that Aramaic was a "dialect" of the Hebrew (as I noted earlier):

From Paton J. Cloag’s, _A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles_, (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, MDCCCLXX), vol 1, p. 202:

Speaking of the situation in Acts 6:1ff., “...the murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews”, Cloag says,

...the Hellenists, then are contrasted with the Hebrews as regards language. As the Hebrews are those Jews who spoke the Hebrew language, or rather the dialect of it then current, the Aramaic—the Palestinian Jews; so the Hellenists are those Jews who, residing chiefly in foreign parts, had lost the use of their native Hebrew, and spoke the Greek language—the Hellenistic Jews.​
It appears Cloag is using "dialect" to simply mean the current language of the Hebrews then living in Palestine.

J.A. Alexander, in his Geneva Series (BOT) commentary on Acts, distinguishes between the Hebrews and the Grecians and says,

...the Hebrews, or natives of Palestine and others...used the scriptures, and spoke the Aramaic dialect before described (on 1:19). (p. 242)​
Commenting on that verse (Acts 1:19) he speaks of the phrase “proper tongue” (AV),

...i.e., their own language or peculiar dialect, an Aramaic modification or corruption of the Hebrew spoken by the Jews from the time of their captivity in Babylon, and often called by modern writers, Syro-Chaldaic... (p. 28)​
He uses "dialect" to mean the language current among the Hebrews then.

John Gill on “proper tongue” in this verse says,

...or in their own dialect, the Jerusalem dialect, which was now Chaldee, or Syriac... (_Exposition_, vol 8, p. 144)​
I bring these quotes up to show that other commentators used the word, and Edersheim was not alone in using that phraseology.

But as I said, and let me state it again emphatically, the status of Aramaic — whether one may call it a "dialect" of the Hebrews — is, to my thinking, a diversion from the point in question, that being, did Christ quote the Septuagint, speaking in Greek to the rabbis, priests, and scribes. The status of the Aramaic vis-à-vis dialect of Hebrew or no has no bearing on my argument.

I would also, shortly, like to return to the question of the OP re the WCF 1:8 and the Critical Text. I'm sorry for my part in hijacking the thread — though I won't let blatant misrepresentations of what I have said stand.

There was a turning point in the Presbyterian understanding of 1:8, where what had been the view of it from the time of its being written, changed. It think this is important in the discussion. I will shortly post on it.


----------



## TsonMariytho

dialect (dì´e-lèkt´) noun
Abbr. dial.
*1.	a. A regional variety of a language distinguished by pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary, especially a variety of speech differing from the standard literary language or speech pattern of the culture in which it exists: Cockney is a dialect of English. b. A variety of language that with other varieties constitutes a single language of which no single variety is standard: the dialects of Ancient Greek.
*2.	The language peculiar to an occupational group or a particular social class; jargon: the dialect of science.
3.	The manner or style of expressing oneself in language or the arts.
*4.	A language considered as part of a larger family of languages or a linguistic branch: Spanish and French are Romance dialects.
*
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.​
It seems to me that we can't consider Aramaic a dialect of Hebrew under definition #1. However, we can consider both Hebrew and Aramaic as dialects of a wider Semitic language family, under definition #4.

I think definition #4 is not used very often nowadays, though I wonder if it was more prevalent back in the 1800's and such when more scholars were TR advocates? Does that evaluation sound about right, Steve and Tim?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

This is a short intro to the topic I mentioned above. It pertains to Warfield championing Westcott and Hort's revised Greek text, and his efforts against the higher critical attack on the Scriptures. This bears directly on the OP's question. I would say, in brief, that those who hold to the WCF (and 1:8 in particular) while using the CT, do so in good conscience, due to Warfield's influence. Were BBW's views correct? That's another matter. I'll continue later. It's way past my bedtime in this part of the world.

Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield wrote to the general Christian public in _Sunday School Times_ 24 in 1882, that Mark’s long ending was “no part of God’s word,” and therefore “we are not to ascribe to the verses the authority due to God’s Word.” [Cited from Theodore P. Letis’ _The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind_, p. 53]. In naming him thus be it understood I mean not at all to demean “the mighty Warfield,” as other than in the area of text criticism I honor and love him. But when a man is wrong we sin if we do not decry that error which causes harm to the flock of God.

To his credit, Warfield’s intentions were good; he hoped to disarm the threat posed by text criticism in the hands of liberal and unbelieving scholars by redefining the Westminster Confession’s statement on Scripture to refer to the inerrant autographs (anciently lost and beyond reach) instead of the apographs (the copies; texts in the hands of the Westminster divines). I quote from Letis’ essay “B. B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism” (in _The Ecclesiastical Text”_, pp. 26-27) *[see footnote]:

Only eight years after Warfield’s death [in Feb 1921], the higher criticism entered Princeton and the seminary was reorganized to accommodate this. The facile certainty that Westcott and Hort’s system seem to offer Warfield evaporated. Later text critics abandoned the hope of reconstructing a “neutral” text and today despair of ever discovering an _urtext_, the final resting ground of Warfield’s doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy. Warfield had given earnest expression to his hope that,

The autographic text of the New Testament is distinctly within the reach of criticism….we cannot despair of restoring to ourselves and the church of God, His book, word for word, as He gave it by inspiration to men. [“The Rights of Criticism and of the Church”, _The Presbyterian_ (April 13, 1892):15]​
Fifty years later, the Harvard text critic, Kirsopp Lake, offered a more modest assessment:

In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort….we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall. [_Family 13 (The Ferrar Group_ (Phila., The Univ. of Penn. Press, 1941), p. vii]​
Warfield’s Common Sense adoption of German methods would be more fully developed by others at Princeton who would no longer find his appendage of the inerrant autographs theory either convincing, or any longer relevant for N.T. studies.​
Make no mistake about it, Warfield’s textual theories, taken in good faith from Westcott and Hort – which he was open to after his studies in German criticism at the University of Leipzig in 1876 – single-handedly turned the Reformed Communities from their former view of the WCF and its prizing the texts-in-hand to the (what turned out to be) never-to-be-found-or-restored autographic texts. This was the watershed. And today men of good intentions seek to make the best of it, developing theories and stances so as to defend what they say is a trustworthy Bible.

-----

* This essay may also be found in Letis' book, _Edward Freer Hills's Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text_, pp. 62-89.


----------



## TimV

> This is not a true statement by TimV:
> 
> One myth, that Steve and others here, who supports the hard core version of the AV school, have to hold is that Aramaic is a dialect of Hebrew.
> The statement by Edersheim about Aramaic being a dialect of ancient Hebrew is incidental and not related the point I was making. Nor do I in any way have to hold that to support my position re the AV.


If it was incidental you wouldn't be digging your feet in.



> 4. A language considered as part of a larger family of languages or a linguistic branch: Spanish and French are Romance dialects.
> 
> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
> It seems to me that we can't consider Aramaic a dialect of Hebrew under definition #1. However, we can consider both Hebrew and Aramaic as dialects of a wider Semitic language family, under definition #4.
> 
> I think definition #4 is not used very often nowadays, though I wonder if it was more prevalent back in the 1800's and such when more scholars were TR advocates? Does that evaluation sound about right, Steve and Tim?



Thanks, Andrew for you well intentioned moderation ;-) but the answer is no. Steve tried that tack. The definition in number 4, Spanish and French being Romance languages (descended from Latin):


> One of a group of closely related languages. Ex. Some of the dialects descended from the Latin language are French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese.” World Book Dict.


but I've personally contacted three experts in the field, and the last one said


> No, Palestinian dialect of Aramaic is not dialect of
> Hebrew. It is one of dialects of late and middle
> Western Aramaic. The closest dialects are Samaritan
> Aramaic and Nabatean Aramaic.



Andrew, you are well read enough to know that Latin was the origin of both French and Spanish. And even if that was a fact you previously hadn't considered, by now I think it's plain that Palestinian Aramaic did NOT have as an antecedent Hebrew.

A better analogy would be that since English and Spanish and Latin are all Indo European languages, I'll simply choose to call English a dialect of Latin. In my own private language.

Sorry, but that dawg don't hunt. Right?

Definition # 4: Latin to Spanish = dialect (in the most reaching definition possible!!)

Is Hebrew's relation to Palestinian Aramaic similar? No, because Spanish descended from Latin, but PA didn't descend from Hebrew. It's not that hard.

Right? Anyone else out there (before we move on) who wants to claim Palestinian Aramaic can be properly called a dialect of Hebrew? 

And PLEASE, if Google has 3 million hits on 9/11, and 3,999,150 of them say Arab terrorists flew two commercial airliners into the Twin Towers, and 50 say the US government brought the Twin Towers down, PLEASE let's not put all data on an equivalent footing. Anyone can prove anything they want using those techniques. Gill is very valuable, but has been dead for a couple centuries. He believed in Dragons. Edersheim had some fantastic views of the number of Jews in Iraqi treasure Cities that nobody takes seriously today. Let's honor them and remember how limited their information was compared to ours.


----------



## TsonMariytho

TimV said:


> Thanks, Andrew for you well intentioned moderation ;-) but the answer is no. Steve tried that tack. The definition in number 4, Spanish and French being Romance languages (descended from Latin):
> 
> 
> 
> One of a group of closely related languages. Ex. Some of the dialects descended from the Latin language are French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese.” World Book Dict.
> 
> 
> 
> but I've personally contacted three experts in the field, and the last one said
> 
> 
> 
> No, Palestinian dialect of Aramaic is not dialect of
> Hebrew. It is one of dialects of late and middle
> Western Aramaic. The closest dialects are Samaritan
> Aramaic and Nabatean Aramaic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Andrew, you are well read enough to know that Latin was the origin of both French and Spanish. And even if that was a fact you previously hadn't considered, by now I think it's plain that Palestinian Aramaic did NOT have as an antecedent Hebrew.
> 
> A better analogy would be that since English and Spanish and Latin are all Indo European languages, I'll simply choose to call English a dialect of Latin. In my own private language.
> 
> Sorry, but that dawg don't hunt. Right?
> 
> Definition # 4: Latin to Spanish = dialect (in the most reaching definition possible!!)
> 
> Is Hebrew's relation to Palestinian Aramaic similar? No, because Spanish descended from Latin, but PA didn't descend from Hebrew. It's not that hard.
> 
> Right? Anyone else out there (before we move on) who wants to claim Palestinian Aramaic can be properly called a dialect of Hebrew?
> 
> And PLEASE, if Google has 3 million hits on 9/11, and 3,999,150 of them say Arab terrorists flew two commercial airliners into the Twin Towers, and 50 say the US government brought the Twin Towers down, PLEASE let's not put all data on an equivalent footing. Anyone can prove anything they want using those techniques. Gill is very valuable, but has been dead for a couple centuries. He believed in Dragons. Edersheim had some fantastic views of the number of Jews in Iraqi treasure Cities that nobody takes seriously today. Let's honor them and remember how limited their information was compared to ours.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm... If you review my post above, you will note I phrased my sentences very carefully. I suggested that under definition #4, both Hebrew and Aramaic were dialects of a wider Semitic language family. Under definition #4, it seems you can't have a language be a dialect of another language, cf. Spanish --> Latin (or PA --> Hebrew).

I think you and I are on the same page here, Tim.


----------



## TimV

> I think you and I are on the same page here, Tim.


Sorry! I must have misunderstood you. I thought you said that


> However, we can consider both Hebrew and Aramaic as dialects of a wider Semitic language family, under definition #4.


But that won't work, unless you are willing to call English a dialect of Ancient Persian, since they're both part of a "wider Indo-European language family.

Are we still on the same page?


----------



## TsonMariytho

TimV said:


> I think you and I are on the same page here, Tim.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry! I must have misunderstood you. I thought you said that
> 
> 
> 
> However, we can consider both Hebrew and Aramaic as dialects of a wider Semitic language family, under definition #4.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that won't work, unless you are willing to call English a dialect of Ancient Persian, since they're both part of a "wider Indo-European language family.
> 
> Are we still on the same page?
Click to expand...


Yes, we're on the same page, because ancient Persian is not a "language family". Both Hebrew and PA can be dialects of some amorphous Semitic language family, but they cannot be dialects of another distinct language under definition #4.

French and Italian are both dialects of the Romance language family under definition #4. They are not dialects of Latin under definition #4. Latin is not a language family, it is a language in its own right.

Similarly (and I guess this is where I failed to connect with the thread), it would be improper to say that Aramaic is a dialect of Hebrew under definition #4. While I expect usage of definition #4 was more widespread in the 1800's, I also wonder if sometimes the historical scholars who have been quoted on this thread were a little sloppy in their usage.

Which is what you had been saying all along, if I understand correctly... I feel like I came into the middle of an existing conversation. My apologies for being a little clumsy in trying to hop on midway through.


----------



## TimV

> While I expect usage of definition #4 was more widespread in the 1800's, I also wonder if sometimes the historical scholars who have been quoted on this thread were a little sloppy in their usage.
> 
> Which is what you had been saying all along, if I understand correctly... I feel like I came into the middle of an existing conversation. My apologies for being a little clumsy in trying to hop on midway through.



No, your comments are valuable, and help clarify things. What you wrote above is exactly right.


----------



## Grymir

Ok, I took care of all my problems at work today, caught up on The Clone Wars on the toon network, my wife is cooking a delicious dinner, Ribeye steak and cheesy rice. Now I've settled in and read what y'all posted. 

Thanks Steve for that stuff about the WCF. It's nice to know that a battle over texts did take place.

Now with the formalities and friendliness out of the way, I'm ready. 

This is what I'm trying to understand -

quote -"If Christ can be shown to have quoted from two different sets of Texts, namely the Hebrew and Greek Septuagint, which all orthodox scholarship says He did, then the AV position, at least in it's hard core form falls flat on it's face. I'm trying to systematically go through the myths and false information that support the AV position and tackle them one by one. One myth, that Steve and others here, who supports the hard core version of the AV school, have to hold is that Aramaic is a dialect of Hebrew. It's one of the foundation rhetorical proofs that Christ didn't speak to His people in a foreign language..."

The idea that if Jesus could be shown to have quoted from two different sets of text is one of the ideas I'm having a problem seeing how that applies to the TR/KJV controversy. 

I don't see how Jesus quoting from different texts could be a problem to the TR/KJV. We know that the Hebrew was used in the temple. And different translations were used. The Aramaic/Hebrew distinction almost seems like a non-point to me. Jesus probably used Hebrew in the temple and other translations when addressing differing groups. But how to tell which one he used where would be difficult. Mathew probably wrote down verbatim what Jesus said. But his gospel was written in Hebrew. So all his quotes of Jesus were translated into Hebrew. The other Gospels were written in Greek. So what Jesus used was translated into Greek. So It would be difficult to know which version got used by Jesus. I go by what Josephus said about the Jewish culture at the time, and what the Church fathers wrote about the Bible and who wrote it. They were closer to that time, and knew more about the events that happened then than modern scholars do.

There, that's that about that idea. 

Now I've eaten my delicious dinner. My wife it the best cook in the whole world.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Grymir said:


> Now I've eaten my delicious dinner. My wife it the best cook in the whole world.



Are there any leftovers? You gotta share, man.


----------



## Grymir

Not really, I ate most of the cheesy rice. About 75% of it! And just a little bit of steak, but those are my wifes to snack on latter. She loves those!


----------



## KMK

I've followed this thread from the beginning but am having trouble understanding the purpose of the debate over 'dialects' in regards to the phrase 'kept pure in all ages'. 

To get back to the OP, it is obvious that the Divines believed that Matt 6:13 had been 'kept pure in all ages' because they specifically identify the words, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." as the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer in SC Q 107. If a person believes that those words are not a part of the true NT, then wouldn't they have to take exception to the SC Q 107 which clearly states, "The conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer, which is, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen..."?

And, BTW, by simply asking the question I am not accusing anyone of anything. It is the same question I asked a year ago but did not get much of a response: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/critical-text-wsc-q-107-a-26864/


----------



## CalvinandHodges

TimV:

I am still working on your question.

Andrew:

I do not think that you have substantially answered my post. If John Owen was not defending a "translation" such as the KJV, then how can you lump him into those who would defend the translation?

You wrote:




TsonMariytho said:


> Well, it is a remarkable coincidence. Scrivener's TR had one rule for its assembly -- that it follow the readings of the KJV as closely as possible from whatever Greek sources could be found to support the KJV. Scrivener admitted that his own opinion of the trustworthiness of a given reading had nothing whatsoever to do with whether a reading was included in his text -- the rule was merely whether a reading followed the KJV.



So what? I fail to see the problem here - that Scrivener created a Greek text which showed the readings of the KJV was an act of supreme scholarship on his part. Are you somehow castigating his work *because* he desired to show the textual basis for the KJ readings?

As I pointed out to you before - it is the Byzantine MSS that contain the apographia of the autographs - not a collation done by Beza, Scrivener, Erasmus, or Stephanus. Scrivener's work is a monumental work of scholarship within the Textus Receptus tradition. I value it highly because it shows the Greek renderings of the King James translation. Whether Scrivener, or myself, agree with those renderings is another matter altogether. I think you noted that there were 190 differences between Scrivener and Beza. This would argue that both Scrivener and Beza agree over 99.95% of the time.

To make a comparison: The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus agree with each other about 92% of the time.



> The purpose of Scrivener's work was not to present a Greek text claimed to be the exact text of the autographs (he didn't make that claim); but rather to facilitate comparison with the RV through his detailed footnotes, a goal at which he succeeded very well.


Good. He showed the liberalizing trend of translations not based upon the Byzantine MSS. I am glad we agree with each other here.



> The KJV was created by commission and authorization of the King of England. I wonder if you view the English monarch as the lawful head of the Church of England?


The Church of England at the time of the translation of the KJV was a true Church of God. That I may disagree with their ecclesiology is not a matter of import. The translation was done within the authority of the True Church. William Twisse the proculator of the Westminster Assembly, for example, was episcopalian in his views of Church government.



> Actually, I think you said I'd been reading too much Metzger. Same difference. :^)
> 
> Blessings to you.


It is not the same difference. Bruce Metzger was, at least, willing to admit error when confronted with it. James White is a lackey of Metzger who is a popularizer, and, not as intellectually honest.

Take, for example, the "story" that Erasmus required "one Greek text" in order to include 1 John 5:7 in the Greek. I will reproduce it here from Dr. White's website:



> A hue and cry was raised upon publication, and charges of heresy and Arianism were cast about. Erasmus asked his friend in Rome, Bombasius, to consult the famous Codex Vaticanus concerning the passage. When Bombasius replied that the verse was not contained in that ancient codex, Erasmus rashly proclaimed that if he were to find so much as one Greek text containing the “Three Witnesses” he would include it in his next edition. Of course, such a manuscript was quickly produced. Many suspect it as having been produced specifically for the occasion. It is today known as minuscule 61 and is housed at Trinity College, Dublin. It is dated to the 16th century, and Metzger reports it opens of its own accord to the passage in 1 John, its having been consulted at that point so often.24 True to his word Erasmus included the spurious passage in the third edition (1522) “that there be no calumny.”25 He expressed in a lengthy footnote his doubts concerning the authenticity of the manuscript.


Here is the actual statement from Metzger on the subject:



> Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found—or was made to order!


When he was challenged on this by Erasmian scholars Roland Bainton and Henk de Jong, Metzger placed a footnote stating that such a "story" is not found in any of Erasmus' writings. Dr. White omits such a footnote. One can only suppose that it is a prejudice on Dr. White's part that causes him, to this day, to refrain from admitting the truth. The dating of the MSS in question was to the 13th Century - not the 16th. (Montiforanus was dated by Clarke to the 13th Century - A. Clark, The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes, Vol. 6, p. 928-929). No scholar has ever questioned the dating. They have tried to equate Montiforanus with Brittanicus, but the different readings in 1 John between the two do not allow for such an equivalance.


Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TsonMariytho

KMK said:


> I've followed this thread from the beginning but am having trouble understanding the purpose of the debate over 'dialects' in regards to the phrase 'kept pure in all ages'.



I think you're right, that discussion should probably have a thread of its own, if folks aren't tired of discussing it yet.



KMK said:


> To get back to the OP, it is obvious that the Divines believed that Matt 6:13 had been 'kept pure in all ages' because they specifically identify the words, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." as the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer in SC Q 107. If a person believes that those words are not a part of the true NT, then wouldn't they have to take exception to the SC Q 107 which clearly states, "The conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer, which is, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen..."?
> 
> And, BTW, by simply asking the question I am not accusing anyone of anything. It is the same question I asked a year ago but did not get much of a response: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/critical-text-wsc-q-107-a-26864/



In answer to your question, I suppose it would make sense to take a very qualified exception to that.

I think that contra your complaint, you actually did get a pretty good response in the other thread. Daniel Ritchie pointed out that any exception would surely not be taken to the doctrine contained in the text, because we have:

1Ch 29:11 Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O LORD, and you are exalted as head above all.​
There are a couple subtleties in your post above that need a reply, and some points besides to be made.

1. I'd suggest that the Divines did not claim on behalf of Matt 6:13 *any more or less than for the rest of scripture*, that it had been "kept pure in all ages". They were surely aware that the Biblical text is subject to recognition of variants, and sometimes deletion of spurious readings. 1 John 2:23b is the example I keep coming back to on that.

2. CT advocates are not happy about having to delete known and loved passages of "scripture" when they establish to their satisfaction that they were actually post-apostolic scribal glosses or interpolations. Nobody (emotionally) wants to take the "amen" off the Lord's Prayer. It's what scholars were forced to do out of respect for the text, not a malicious exercise in "seeing how we can change the Bible".

3. Rather than forcing those who are aware of modern textual scholarship to take an exception or struggle with this issue, it would probably make the most sense for the General Assembl(ies) to modify the catechism. I expect that you will disagree with this, I just throw it in there because it makes sense to me.


----------



## Prufrock

> 3. Rather than forcing those who are aware of modern textual scholarship to take an exception or struggle with this issue, it would probably make the most sense for the General Assembl(ies) to modify the catechism. I expect that you will disagree with this, I just throw it in there because it makes sense to me.



This is exactly the point of my opening post: if you feel that the confession needs to be modified, this is the same as saying you take exception to the confession, lest why would it be changed? I wasn't asking for people's personal views on the CT (as many in their posts have pointed out for me), but rather whether it is in accord with the confession, which I think Ken (KMK) observed quite well in a practical case (WSC 107) which parallels my question of the dogmatic prescription of WCF 1.8

So, TsonMariytho, point blank:

1.) Is the quest of the critical text in harmony with WCF 1.8?

and

2.) Is the use of the critical text in harmony with 1.8?


----------



## TsonMariytho

CalvinandHodges said:


> Andrew:
> 
> I do not think that you have substantially answered my post. If John Owen was not defending a "translation" such as the KJV, then how can you lump him into those who would defend the translation?
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TsonMariytho said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it is a remarkable coincidence. Scrivener's TR had one rule for its assembly -- that it follow the readings of the KJV as closely as possible from whatever Greek sources could be found to support the KJV. Scrivener admitted that his own opinion of the trustworthiness of a given reading had nothing whatsoever to do with whether a reading was included in his text -- the rule was merely whether a reading followed the KJV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what? I fail to see the problem here - that Scrivener created a Greek text which showed the readings of the KJV was an act of supreme scholarship on his part. Are you somehow castigating his work *because* he desired to show the textual basis for the KJ readings?
Click to expand...


No, I certainly don't "castigate" Scrivener, the man. I have the highest respect for his scholarly knowledge and abilities. I chose his text for the parallel Greek-English Bible I typeset (public domain version).

Scrivener, the text, I don't castigate either, depending on your definition of "castigate". I think it's a really interesting and useful Greek NT version that happens to be tailored to the KJV's readings. It's a really nice to those who use and love the KJV.

I have argued that the Scrivener "TR's" relevance to textual criticism aimed at recovering the autographs is very limited, due to our inability to know for sure the manuscript basis behind the KJV -- which Scrivener said, not me, so don't give me too hard a time over this!



CalvinandHodges said:


> As I pointed out to you before - it is the Byzantine MSS that contain the apographia of the autographs - not a collation done by Beza, Scrivener, Erasmus, or Stephanus. Scrivener's work is a monumental work of scholarship within the Textus Receptus tradition. I value it highly because it shows the Greek renderings of the King James translation. Whether Scrivener, or myself, agree with those renderings is another matter altogether. I think you noted that there were 190 differences between Scrivener and Beza. This would argue that both Scrivener and Beza agree over 99.95% of the time.
> 
> To make a comparison: The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus agree with each other about 92% of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of Scrivener's work was not to present a Greek text claimed to be the exact text of the autographs (he didn't make that claim); but rather to facilitate comparison with the RV through his detailed footnotes, a goal at which he succeeded very well.
> 
> 
> 
> Good. He showed the liberalizing trend of translations not based upon the Byzantine MSS. I am glad we agree with each other here.
Click to expand...





CalvinandHodges said:


> The Church of England at the time of the translation of the KJV was a true Church of God. That I may disagree with their ecclesiology is not a matter of import. The translation was done within the authority of the True Church. William Twisse the proculator of the Westminster Assembly, for example, was episcopalian in his views of Church government.



You didn't address King James' oversight of the matter in his capacity as "head of the church". But again, this is not high on my list, because I still don't see the distinction here between the KJV and NIV. In both cases, independent Biblical scholars used the knowledge and wisdom God gave them to translate the scriptures for the Church. I don't care who told them to do it, and to some extent I don't care who they were. I only care about the quality of what they came up with. In the case of both the KJV and the NIV, I consider each resulting translation to be superb (given resources and state of textual knowledge available in their day, etc.)



CalvinandHodges said:


> It is not the same difference. Bruce Metzger was, at least, willing to admit error when confronted with it. James White is a lackey of Metzger who is a popularizer, and, not as intellectually honest.
> 
> Take, for example, the "story" that Erasmus required "one Greek text" in order to include 1 John 5:7 in the Greek. I will reproduce it here from Dr. White's website:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A hue and cry was raised upon publication, and charges of heresy and Arianism were cast about. Erasmus asked his friend in Rome, Bombasius, to consult the famous Codex Vaticanus concerning the passage. When Bombasius replied that the verse was not contained in that ancient codex, Erasmus rashly proclaimed that if he were to find so much as one Greek text containing the “Three Witnesses” he would include it in his next edition. Of course, such a manuscript was quickly produced. Many suspect it as having been produced specifically for the occasion. It is today known as minuscule 61 and is housed at Trinity College, Dublin. It is dated to the 16th century, and Metzger reports it opens of its own accord to the passage in 1 John, its having been consulted at that point so often.24 True to his word Erasmus included the spurious passage in the third edition (1522) “that there be no calumny.”25 He expressed in a lengthy footnote his doubts concerning the authenticity of the manuscript.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the actual statement from Metzger on the subject:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found—or was made to order!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When he was challenged on this by Erasmian scholars Roland Bainton and Henk de Jong, Metzger placed a footnote stating that such a "story" is not found in any of Erasmus' writings. Dr. White omits such a footnote. One can only suppose that it is a prejudice on Dr. White's part that causes him, to this day, to refrain from admitting the truth. The dating of the MSS in question was to the 13th Century - not the 16th. (Montiforanus was dated by Clarke to the 13th Century - A. Clark, The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes, Vol. 6, p. 928-929). No scholar has ever questioned the dating. They have tried to equate Montiforanus with Brittanicus, but the different readings in 1 John between the two do not allow for such an equivalance.
> 
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob
Click to expand...


The above is fine and good, except that:

1. Just because Erasmus himself doesn't mention the story doesn't mean it was made up, or that Metzger had no sources for it. (Obviously, he had a source he trusted.)

2. I think you are speaking very uncharitably about James White. "lackey?" "intellectually dishonest?" Come on.

3. That Erasmus disputed the authenticity of the Johannine Comma is beyond question, since he vented his unhappiness in his own text-critical footnote. That he didn't simply transcribe the epistle entirely from a flawless, original TR-matching source manuscript is pretty obvious though. He had to find that part somewhere else.


----------



## TimV

> I've followed this thread from the beginning but am having trouble understanding the purpose of the debate over 'dialects' in regards to the phrase 'kept pure in all ages'.


The main question is what a group of people long dead meant by kept pure in all ages, and people disagree on that. It seems obvious to me they would be willing to correct the version of the Bible they were using when new information came to light, as per the quotations I've posted by Augustine and Erasmus. Take this from Augustine, which the Divines were naturally familiar with



> In the Harmony of the Gospels (ii. 29, 67), writing of the daughter of Jairus (Matt. ix. 29), he mentions that some codices contain the reading "woman" (mulier) for "damsel." Commenting on Matt. v. 22, "Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause," he includes the expression "without a cause" without even a hint of its spuriousness (Serm. on Mt. i. 9, 25); but in his Retractations (i. 19. 4) he makes the correction, "The Greek manuscripts do not contain sine causa."



Look it up in your KJV and Geneva. It's got the _sine causa_. Then look it up in versions like the ESV and ASV, Vulgate, etc.. and you'll see it's not there.

It blows my mind that some people think the Divines thought that the TR was the final word, but there you go. Some people here actually interpret 1.8 in that way.

So in the absence of any definitive proof, try changing the question. Ask yourself whether 1.8 COULD mean that what Erasmus said


> "You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospels. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices."


and that room for correction was built into what the Divines meant.

If you're still with me, let's say that 1.8 COULD mean either that the TR is exactly the Word of God or that it COULD mean that God preserved His Word, but not necessarily on one piece of paper throughout the ages.

So, for purposes of discussion, if you were absolutely certain that New Testament authors had access to more than one translation of the Bible, and that those translations differed even more than the Textus Receptus does from the Critical Text, and that New Testament authors quoted from both of those translations, would those New Testament authors have been violating 1.8?

Edit: Since Steve keeps quoting Edersheim, I typed out something just now from my copy of his Life and Times


> ..we have here the Greek translation of the Old Testament, venerable not only as the oldest, but as that which at the time of Jesus held the place of our Authorized Version, as as such is often, although freely, quoted in the New Testament.


You see in this case Edersheim holds to the position all orthodox scholarship. You have to go to marginalized, mainly IFB sources to deny that New Testament authors quoted from both the Hebrew text the Greek text, and that they vary more than the TR does from the CT. So, to make myself doubly plain, were the New Testament authors in violation of 1.8?


----------



## ChristianTrader

KMK said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further on bibliographic references on WCF 1:8, it was remiss of me not to mention an article seminal to my own thinking, which is Theodore Letis' "Edward Freer Hills' Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesisatical Text," in Journal of Christian Reconstruction 12 (1989), 2:21ff. This article shows that for the reformed tradition the "authentical text" is in fact a canonical issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I found it for $9.10 here: https://www.chalcedonstore.com/xcart/product.php?productid=2189&cat=34&page=1
> 
> Does anyone know if it is online?
Click to expand...


The issues of JCR are 80% off of the normal price, so the price is basically 2 bucks plus shipping.

CT


----------



## mossy

CT,
Thank you very much for the headsup on that sale. 

Terry


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

"If it was incidental you wouldn't be digging your feet in."​
Please don't presume to know my motives.


Rob (C&H), can you give a source for this figure, please: "To make a comparison: The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus agree with each other about 92% of the time." I know that in the Gospels alone they disagree against one another 3,036 times (from Hoskier's collation in _Codex B and its Allies: A Study and an Indictment_, Vol. 2, page 1).


Andrew, you said, 

I'd suggest that the Divines did not claim on behalf of Matt 6:13 *any more or less than for the rest of scripture*, that it had been "kept pure in all ages". They were surely aware that the Biblical text is subject to recognition of variants, and sometimes deletion of spurious readings. 1 John 2:23b is the example I keep coming back to on that.​
But that was not one of the variants (that is, the omission of the end of the verse) they owned as being possibly legitimate. It was precisely the variants that the Roman Catholic church used (including variants in Codex B, even though they differed from variants in the Latin Vulgate) in its attempt to overthrow the Reformers' doctrine of Sola Scriptura, that the Post-Reformation scholars denied the validity of and fought against. By Post-Reformation scholars I include the Westminster divines. Ted Letis has an essay on this: "John Owen _Versus_ Brian Walton: A Reformed Response to the Birth of Text Criticism", in _The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate_ pp. 146-190, ISBN: 944355005. (Walton produced the _Biblia Polyglotta_, which contained a vast multitude of variants, the intent of which was to undermine the Reformation's Scripture.)

A study on Matthew 6:13: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/defending-lords-prayer-1-a-27974/

In the same book (_The Majority Text_) Letis also has an essay, "Theodore Beza as Text Critic: A View Into the Sixteenth Century Approach to New Testament Text Criticism"; and in his, _Edward Freer Hills's Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text_, he has an essay, "The Scholastic Approach to Text Critical Problems", where he scrutinizes Beza, Calvin, and Owen. Letis' work as a historian of the text, and textual issues, is very valuable, although his books are out of print, and rare. I think I paid $100 for _The Majority Text_ through Amazon! One might try the distributor, Russ Spees at [email protected] , to see if he has any copies of it (I didn't know he had it at normal retail till later). He may also have some copies of the book on Edward Hills left, though I think he is out of _The Ecclesiastical Text_.

RE 1 John 2:23b, I mentioned above that it is not in my AV as part of the text proper, being italicized, indicating it was supplied by the translators. I know it is not part of the Bible. May it help give a sense of meaning, as other supplied / italicized portions do? Yes. But, I repeat, it is not Scripture.


Paul (Prufrock), I think you would find Letis' stuff of great interest.

I will need to continue my responses after our evening service.

Steve


----------



## TimV

> It was precisely the variants that the Roman Catholic church used (including variants in Codex B, even though they differed from variants in the Latin Vulgate) in its attempt to overthrow the Reformers' doctrine of Sola Scriptura, that the Post-Reformation scholars denied the validity of and fought against. By Post-Reformation scholars I include the Westminster divines.


Could you please clarify that? What did the post Reformation scholars including the Westminster Divines fight against, _sola scriptura_ or certain Roman Catholic variants?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Sorry if that was unclear, Tim. It was the Roman Catholic variants.

[Note: TimV only thanked me for the little line above, not what is below. For some reason I can't get a new post, only an add-on to an earlier one]

-----Added 12/14/2008 at 03:14:44 EST-----

In the AV, Matthew 5:22 reads “whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause”, while the Critical Text omits the Greek word [size=+1]eikh[/size], pronounced i-kay' – in Latin _sine causa_, and reads “whoever is angry with his brother”. John Burgon, discussing this omission, remarks, 

Our present contention however is but this,—that a Reading which is attested by _every uncial Copy of the Gospels except B and_ [size=+1]a[/size]; by a whole _torrent of Fathers_; by _every known copy_ of the old Latin,—by _all_ the Syriac, (for the Peschito inserts [not translates] the word εικη,)—by the Coptic,—as well as by the Gothic—and Armenian versions;—that such a reading is not to be set aside by the stupid dictum, ‘_Western and Syrian_.’ By no such methods will the study of Textual Criticism be promoted, or any progress ever be made in determining the Truth of Scripture…

May we however respectfully ask these learned Editors why, besides Irenaeus—Eusebius—and Cyprian—they do not mention that [size=+1]eikh[/size] is also the reading of Justin Martyr—of Origen himself—of the _Constitutiones App_.—of Basil three times—of Gregory of Nyssa—of Epiphanius—of Ephraem Syrus twice—of Isidorus twice—of Theodore of Mops—of Chrysostom 18 times—of the _Opus imp._ twice—of Cyril—and of Theodoret—(each in three places). It was also the reading of Severus, Abp. of Antioch:—as well as of Hilary—Lucifer—Salvian—Philastrius—Augustine, and—Jerome—(although, when translating from Origen, he pronounces against [size=+1]eikh[/size])—not to mention Antiochus mon.—J. Damascene—Maximus—Photius—Euthymius—Theophylact— and others?…We have adduced no less than thirty ancient witnesses…

The _sum_ of the matter proves to be as follows: Codd. B _and_ [size=+1]a[/size] (the ‘two false Witnesses’)—B and [size=+1]a[/size], _alone of MSS_—omit [size=+1]eikh[/size]. On the strength of this, Dr. Hort persuaded his fellow Revisers to omit ‘without a cause’ from their Revised Version: and it is proposed, in consequence, that every Englishman’s copy of S. Matthew v.22 shall be mutilated in the same way forever…

But the question arises—Will the Church of England submit to have her immemorial heritage thus filched from her? We shall be astonished indeed if she proves so regardless of her birthright.

[from Burgon’s, _The Revision Revised_, pages 359-362.]​
That in Augustine’s _Retractations_ (i. 19. 4) he makes the statement, “The Greek manuscripts do not contain sine causa”, may have other reasons, as in the manuscripts he had access to, etc. In light of the voluminous testimony to its authenticity this is not highly significant.

-----Added 12/14/2008 at 03:44:01 EST-----

Tim says:

"Since Steve keeps quoting Edersheim, I typed out something just now from my copy of his Life and Times:



> ..we have here the Greek translation of the Old Testament, venerable not only as the oldest, but as that which at the time of Jesus held the place of our Authorized Version, as as such is often, although freely, quoted in the New Testament.



"You see in this case Edersheim holds to the position all orthodox scholarship. You have to go to marginalized, mainly IFB sources to deny that New Testament authors quoted from both the Hebrew text the Greek text, and that they vary more than the TR does from the CT. So, to make myself doubly plain, were the New Testament authors in violation of 1.8?"​
-------

In Book I, Chapter II, Edersheim has a long discussion of Hellenistic Jews, their worldview, their attitudes vis-à-vis Palestinian Jews, traits of the Hellenists, along with their literature, including the LXX. When he says it was “the people’s Bible” (p. 23) he makes clear that for the Jews who could not speak or read the Hebrew this was the only Scripture they had, not to mention it was dirt cheap to procure a Greek copy, while an approved Hebrew copy was not only far beyond the reach of most financially, but unreadable to most. He discusses the legendary origin of the LXX, gleaning what actual historicity of it was available, and also the character of the work, and its value. It was full of errors, Hellenisms displacing the Hebrew, and such.

Seeing as he had such a generous view of the Septuagint, it is as “a friendly witness” he pronounces against Christ quoting from it and speaking Greek to the rabbis and Pharisees.

Again, in Book I, p. 234, we find Edersheim saying, 

“From His [Christ’s] intimate familiarity with Holy Scripture, in its every detail, we may be allowed to infer that the home of Nazareth, however humble, possessed a precious copy of the Sacred Volume in its entirety. At any rate, we know that from earliest childhood it must have formed the meat and drink of the God-Man. The words of the Lord, as recorded by St. Matthew [5:18] and St. Luke [16:17], also imply that the Holy Scriptures which He read were in the original Hebrew, and that they were written in the square, or Assyrian, characters (this may be gathered even from an expression as ‘One iota, or one little hook’). Indeed, as the Pharisees and Sadducees always appealed to the Scriptures in the original, Jesus could not have met them on any other ground, and it was this which gave such point to His frequent expostulations with them: ‘Have ye not read?’​
As for it being “marginalized, mainly IFB sources [who] deny that New Testament authors quoted from both the Hebrew text the Greek text” I post this conversation re http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/psalm-14-3-lxx-15502/ :



> Has anyone seen this before? I have always read that Romans 3:10-18 is a collection of texts scattered throughout the Old Testament that Paul "strung together" ... namely, Ps. 14:1-3; Ps. 10:7; Isa. 59:7, 8; Ps. 36:1.
> 
> But when I just checked the Septuagint reading of Psalm 14 (in two different Septuagint texts), Ps. 14:3 had the entire quotation of Rom. 3:12-18.
> 
> This would mean that Paul didn't string the texts together; the Septuagint translators did so at Ps. 14:3, and Paul simply quoted the Septuagint at Ps. 14:1-3 (interestingly enough, 14:2 reads the same in the Septuagint as in our Bibles; so that Paul's reading of "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God" is his own apostolic, inspired interpretation of that verse, and not also derived from the Septuagint).



And I respond:



> Calvin specifically pronounces on verse 15 of Romans 3:
> 
> The expression which Paul adds from Isaiah, _Destruction and misery are in their ways_, is a most striking one, for it is a description of ferocity of immeasurable barbarity, which produces solitude and waste by destroying everything wherever it goes…
> 
> …There follows the phrase, _The way of peace they have not known_. They are so habituated to rapine, acts of violence and wrong, savagery and cruelty, that they do not know how to act in a kind or friendly way.​
> No doubt he was aware of the LXX’s reading. This quote would be from [the Hebrew] Isaiah 59:7, 8.
> 
> Keil and Delitzsch, in their comments on Psalm 14:3, say:
> 
> The citations of the apostle which follow his quotation of the Psalm…were early incorporated in the [Koine] of the LXX. They appear as an integral part of it in the _Cod. Alex._ [and he lists a few more odd places where it is found in text or margin –SMR]…Origen rightly excluded this apostolic Mosaic work of Old Testament quotations from his text of the Psalm, and the true representation of the matter is to be found in Jerome, in the preface to the xvi. book of his commentary on Isaiah.​
> Lastly I submit Douglas Moo’s opinion (from his NICNT commentary, _The Epistle To the Romans_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996):
> 
> The inclusion of Romans 3:13-18 in several MSS of the LXX of Psalm 14 is a striking example of the influence of Christian scribes on the transmission of the LXX. (See S-H for a thorough discussion). (p. 203, fn. 28) [S-H refers to _A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans_, by William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam (ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902)]​
> What Moo is saying, explicitly—as Origen implicitly, K&D concurring—is that the LXX’s reading in Psalm 14:3 came from Romans via Christian scribes, and not the other way around, i.e., from the LXX into Romans.



These are not marginal folks! And an educated minority view need not be slurred as “marginal”! Joshua and Caleb had a minority appraisal of the promised land of Canaan, and were marginalized by the vast majority, but the Lord vindicated them. It would be pleasant – and godly – to discuss the issues without denigrating people!

-------

Archaeology has failed to produce a single piece of papyrus written in Greek before c.150 A.D. that any writer of the New Testament used for a "quotation".

The nearest thing to an Old Testament Greek Bible found by anyone is the Ryland Papyrus (No. 458), which has a few portions of Deuteronomy 23-28 on it. This piece of papyrus is dated 150 B.C. (questionable date) which is fifty to one hundred years later than the writing of the so-called original Septuagint.

The thing is, whatever the quality – and the extent – of a Greek Old Testament in the time of Christ is conjecture, for we have no LXX from those days besides Ryland Papyrus (No. 458). The only LXXs we have still extant are those to be found in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. We just don’t know the state of the LXX in Christ’s time. I don’t believe this can be disputed.

As TimV picks and chooses from Edersheim, so do I. I don’t hold to every view he has; though his views of Christ speaking in Hebrew to the Pharisees – and _not_ Greek – I hold as sound.


----------



## TimV

Hi, Steve

Yes, I did say


> As for it being “marginalized, mainly IFB sources [who] deny that New Testament authors quoted from both the Hebrew text the Greek text”


and I meant it fully. You wrote


> These are not marginal folks! And an educated minority view need not be slurred as “marginal”!


After you quoted some people including K&D (Keil and Delitzsch)


> What Moo is saying, explicitly—as Origen implicitly, K&D concurring—is that the LXX’s reading in Psalm 14:3 came from Romans via Christian scribes, and not the other way around, i.e., from the LXX into Romans.


It has nothing to do with the amount of education someone has. It has everything to do with training yourself to think in a traditional Western, Christian, logical way.

Instead of spending the 15 minutes it would have taken you to do the simple research necessary to find out whether Keil and Delitzsch believed that some New Testament authors quoted the Septuagint as well as the Hebrew, you spent hours working backwards from a preconceived theory. And the way you did it was by using sources to look for evidence *supporting* your theory, and you came to the conclusion that Keil and Delitzsch held to your view that New Testament authors didn't quote from the Septuagint.

And that's not how science works. 

Here's what Kiel and Delitzsch wrote about Isaiah 6:9-10



> and one heal it,” i.e., “and it be healed:” and it is in accordance with this sense that it is paraphrased in Mar_4:12, whereas in the three other passages in which the words are quoted in the New Testament (viz., Matthew, John, and Acts) the Septuagint rendering is adopted, “and I should heal them”



If Keil and Delitzsch are to be believed (you brought them up, as you did Edersheim, not me) Matthew, John and the author of Acts would all have been in violation of WCF 1.8, according to your reading of it.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Tim,
I believe that the point that Steve is attempting to make is that we do not know what the original Sept looked like at the time of the Apostles. I think his point with Psalm 14:3, was that it is accepted by many that the Sept was altered (if only at that point) after the fact. Since that is the case, it is hard to use the Sept as a battering ram against those who believe it was not quoted at all.

Instead you are going to have to not just put forward the Sept but instead also put forward why you believe it is accurate at that point.

Or put another way, it is not a question of conspiracy vs. non conspiracy. It is a question of big conspiracy vs. small one.


----------



## TimV

> Tim,
> I believe that the point that Steve is attempting to make is that we do not know what the original Sept looked like at the time of the Apostles.


I appreciate that, but my point has to do with how a person evaluates evidence. If virtually all of orthodox scholarship is unanimous, including sources Steve himself quotes from to make his case, I'm under no obligation to treat revisionist literature as having the same value as the overwhelming bulk of orthodox evidence. K&D would have been shocked to have learned that their names were brought up to support a position the opposite of which they believed.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:



> You didn't address King James' oversight of the matter in his capacity as "head of the church".


Anglicans hold that the King of England is the head of the Church of England. Are you asking if I believe this? - no I do not. Nor do I believe that the Church of England - today - is a true church of God. However, back in the 1600's I do believe that the Church of England was a true Church. The marks of the True Church are:

The right preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The right administration of the Sacraments.
The right application of Church Discipline.

The idea of Church government does not come into view on this matter.

Next,



> But again, this is not high on my list, because I still don't see the distinction here between the KJV and NIV. In both cases, independent Biblical scholars used the knowledge and wisdom God gave them to translate the scriptures for the Church. I don't care who told them to do it, and to some extent I don't care who they were. I only care about the quality of what they came up with. In the case of both the KJV and the NIV, I consider each resulting translation to be superb (given resources and state of textual knowledge available in their day, etc.


The King James Translators were not "independent Biblical scholars," but members of the Church of England. You may think differently if you like, but such an understanding is generally regarded as fantasy.

The problem with your "I don't care" attitude is that it runs contrary to the Bible. The Scriptures are clear that the Word of God is given to the Church - not a bunch of "independent Biblical scholars", a "publishing corporation," or a "Bible Society." Again, if you want to continue thinking that the KJ translators are equivalent to the NIV translators, then you are free to do so.

There is an historical precident giving King James the authority to commission a translation. Constantine, in 313 AD, called the Church to create a new Greek text. The Church responded to the call.



> The above is fine and good, except that:
> 
> 1. Just because Erasmus himself doesn't mention the story doesn't mean it was made up, or that Metzger had no sources for it. (Obviously, he had a source he trusted.)
> 
> 2. I think you are speaking very uncharitably about James White. "lackey?" "intellectually dishonest?" Come on.
> 
> 3. That Erasmus disputed the authenticity of the Johannine Comma is beyond question, since he vented his unhappiness in his own text-critical footnote. That he didn't simply transcribe the epistle entirely from a flawless, original TR-matching source manuscript is pretty obvious though. He had to find that part somewhere else.


1) Where did the story come from? It does not come from any of the sources or published, and non-published, writings of Erasmus. If Dr. Metzger had a source for his "story" then he would have published it and not run a retraction of it as a footnote in his book.

Andrew, you are speculating here. If Metzger had a reliable source, then he would have produced it and saved himself some scholarly embarrassment.

2) I am not being uncharitable because what I say is verifiable. Myself and others have emailed Dr. White pointing out the retraction that Dr. Metzger made. Dr. White is not even willing to consider Metzger's humility on the subject, and is unrepentant. This is a sure sign of either ignorance blinding one to reality, or, intellectual pride. In this matter Dr. Metzger is showing more Christian humility (even though he is an unbeliever) than Dr. White who claims to be a Reformed Baptist.

3) Erasmus can dispute it till he is blue in the face. The argument for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma outweighs the argument against it.

Until you can substantially answer my first post to you it is not profitable for me to answer any other points you may have. Consider that I have placed you into a "No Spin Zone" and that you will need to answer my first post to you before I answer any other points.

Tim - I will probably be able to give you an answer tomorrow.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TimV

Thanks Rob, I'm looking forward to it. Also, you've given me a bit to chew on with your point about the Church being needed to authorize a translation. Definitely worth some thought, as I myself have made the point many times that parachurch organisation aren't proper because they are without the Churches mandated oversight of Elders.

I do have a few questions (although I'm already leaning towards your view of the matter). When you say



> The problem with your "I don't care" attitude is that it runs contrary to the Bible. The Scriptures are clear that the Word of God is given to the Church - not a bunch of "independent Biblical scholars", a "publishing corporation," or a "Bible Society." Again, if you want to continue thinking that the KJ translators are equivalent to the NIV translators, then you are free to do so.



Who gave approval to Erasmus?


----------



## ChristianTrader

TimV said:


> Tim,
> I believe that the point that Steve is attempting to make is that we do not know what the original Sept looked like at the time of the Apostles.
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate that, but my point has to do with how a person evaluates evidence. If virtually all of orthodox scholarship is unanimous, including sources Steve himself quotes from to make his case, I'm under no obligation to treat revisionist literature as having the same value as the overwhelming bulk of orthodox evidence. K&D would have been shocked to have learned that their names were brought up to support a position the opposite of which they believed.
Click to expand...


I do not believe that Steve was quoting them in support of the belief that the Apostles never quoted the Sept. He was quoting them to support the belief that a conspiracy occurred at Psalms 14:3. He does not seem to, nor does he need them to believe that the Sept was never quoted.

That is enough to change the debate from non-conspiracy vs. conspiracy to small conspiracy theorists vs. big conspiracy theorists.

CT


----------



## TimV

> I do not believe that Steve was quoting them in support of the belief that the Apostles never quoted the Sept. He was quoting them to support the belief that a conspiracy occurred at Psalms 14:3. He does not seem to, nor does he need them to believe that the Sept was never quoted.



That may be, but I re-read his post again just now, and the context is me claiming that only marginalized sources claim NT authors didn't quote from both the Septuagint and Hebrew, and that they differ more than the TR, MT and CT do from each other.

Can we at least both agree if NT authors DID quote from places in the Septuagint that were different than from the Hebrew the term "kept pure in all ages" in 1.8 can't mean one single translation?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

TimV said:


> Thanks Rob, I'm looking forward to it. Also, you've given me a bit to chew on with your point about the Church being needed to authorize a translation. Definitely worth some thought, as I myself have made the point many times that parachurch organisation aren't proper because they are without the Churches mandated oversight of Elders.
> 
> I do have a few questions (although I'm already leaning towards your view of the matter). When you say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your "I don't care" attitude is that it runs contrary to the Bible. The Scriptures are clear that the Word of God is given to the Church - not a bunch of "independent Biblical scholars", a "publishing corporation," or a "Bible Society." Again, if you want to continue thinking that the KJ translators are equivalent to the NIV translators, then you are free to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who gave approval to Erasmus?
Click to expand...


Hi Tim:

The official approval came from the Roman Catholic Church. Luther, as the head of his church, (I am using head here loosely) also approved of Erasmus' text. Calvin approved of the edition of Erasmus, but thought that the text needed improving.

That the pope authorized Erasmus in creating a Greek text does not "taint" the MSS. The Reformers at the time thought that the Roman Church was a True Church in its "essence." There are doctrines in the Roman Catholic Church that are true: The Trinity, the Deity of Christ, etc. We do not discount these doctrines because they are acknowledged by Rome.

Good question,

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Dr. Theodore P. Letis on Warfield and the WCF 1:8

[From the beginning of the essay, “B. B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism”, in his book, _The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind_, pp. 1-5 (1997 ISBN: 965860701). I will not be including most of the footnotes accompanying the text, for reasons of space and time.]



*B. B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism*

Traditionally within evangelical circles, higher criticism has been viewed as the forbidding realm of destructive subjectivism. On the other hand, since the late nineteenth century, the lower, or textual criticism, has been viewed as the safe domain where all are thought to be constrained by “objective” data which ultimately demonstrate the reliability of the Biblical text. An historical study of the discipline of lower criticism, however, proves this to be a rather recent development.

Perceptive historians have long noted that it was specifically the _lower_ criticism that originally haunted conservatives because of the threat it posed to their view of _verbal_ inspiration. Thus it was that the lower criticism precipitated the nineteenth century, autographic inerrancy theory, adopted by “several Protestant orthodox theologians . . . after they had to face the results of textual criticism.”

It is sometimes forgotten that _textual_ criticism, as Kümmel reminds us, provided one of the most “decisive stimuli” to the scientific, critical study of the Bible in the beginning. Moreover, it was the deist, Anthony Collins, who in the eighteenth century used John Mill’s early collection of 30,000 N.T. textual variants as an argument for replacing the _revealed_ with the _natural_ religion. And on the American scene, Joseph Stevens Buckminster, persuaded the officials at Harvard College in 1809 to publish an American edition of Griesbach’s critical Greek New Testament, because he saw its value in promoting text criticism, in his opinion, “a most powerful weapon to be used against the supporters of verbal inspiration.”

Benjamine Breckinridge Warfield (1851–1921), Professor at Princeton Seminary from 1887–1921, was the most astute and critically aware N.T. scholar at Princeton during his tenure. While he also retained the old scholastic view of _verbal_ inspiration, he did so, keenly aware of this “weapon” in New England.

A good deal of Warfield’s early academic career, therefore, was spent mastering the discipline of N.T. text criticism so as to tame and neutralize this threat. How he went about his task helps to explain three developments at Princeton in his life time and his lasting influence on the current evangelical view of Scripture: 1) why he gave a distinctive emphasis to the autographic inerrancy theory; 2) how text criticism came to be viewed by evangelicals as a safe, neutral realm that can only support the evangelical cause and never harm it; 3) how Warfield contributed to a climate that was more tolerable toward genuine biblical criticism at Princeton at a time when such criticism was perceived to be threatening in the extreme.


_*Warfield and Scholasticism*_

Warfield’s first step in this process was to distance himself from the Protestant scholastic approach to text critical matters, while retaining the scholastic view of _verbal_ inspiration. This was not an easy move. In the old scholastic system these two aspects went hand and hand—two parts of a whole.* Nevertheless, in contrast to Charles Hodge’s view, which we shall treat below, Warfield began by deprecating the established text (what was called the _textus receptus_—the “received text) which had hitherto been the locus of the verbal view of inspiration. For Warfield, the scholastics had stumbled when their reverence for the Word of God, perversely but not unnaturally exercised, became the standard or received text into the norm of a true text.

Warfield was the first from Princeton to break so decisively with the old text standard. He did so with the confidence that a far better text was then emerging.

Nevertheless, to abandon this standard meant he would be abandoning the text thought to be verbally inspired by the Divines who produced the Westminster Confession of Faith. In order to save, therefore, his verbal view of inspiration—the last vestige of Francis Turretin’s influence—he was forced to now relegate inspiration to the inscrutable autographs of the biblical records.

These, he now argued, when once reconstructed, would be inerrant in a way which far surpassed the text thought to be inspired by the Westminster Divines. Contrary to most critical evaluations of Warfield, the primary influence on him at this point was not Reformed scholasticism, but rather, the Enlightenment.**

The true test for determining if one is an heir of the Reformed scholastics is found in the role the Westminster Confession plays in locating final Scriptural authority. Archibald Alexander (1772–1851), Charles Hodge (1797–1878), and the Southern Presbyterian, Robert Dabney (1820–1890) were genuine heirs of Turretin. They focused authority in present, extant copies of the biblical texts (_apographa_), with all the accompanying textual phenomena, as the “providentially preserved” and sanctioned edition (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8).

Warfield, on the other hand, was the first professor at Princeton to allow his Common-Sense Philosophy the role of reconstructing the text according to the canons of German criticism. Moreover, this German approach to reconstructing the text shared an organic connection with the more radical _higher_ criticism. It demanded that Scripture be approached “as any other literature,” and it legitimized the use of the radical technique of _conjectural emendation_—the very foundation of the higher critical method. In this development, Warfield must be credited with introducing genuine biblical criticism at Princeton, which would receive acceptance at Princeton after the reorganization of this institution in 1929.

--------

Footnotes:
* By scholastic approach, with regard to the issue of text criticism and variants, I mean that approach used from the time of Theodore Beza (1519–1608) to Francis Turretin (1623–1687) whose dogmatics was the primary text at Princeton from 1812 to 1872. This involved fencing in the Masoretic O.T. text and the _textus receptus_ N.T. text by creedal statements regarding their respective, providential preservation and sanction, over all rivals, as the locus of verbal inspiration. While there was a rational component to the posture—when data was brought forth in its defense—it was fundamentally a theological _a priori_ and exceedingly important to the dogmaticians: as important as Warfield’s shift to centering final authority in the autographic text from 1881 onward. On this see, Theodore P. Letis, “The Protestant Dogmaticians and the Late Princeton School on the Status of the Sacred Apographa,” _The Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology_ 8 (1990): 16–42. [This is the next essay following the present one in Letis’ book, _The Ecclesiastical Text_ –SMR]

** . . . the real impetus for Warfield’s position was both the need to answer the challenge of text criticism to _verbal_ inspiration, as well as his personal agenda of wanting to legitimize German text criticism by a new interpretation of the Westminster Confession, by means of which he would actually abandon scholasticism altogether. These are both post-Enlightenment, nineteenth century influences.


----------



## TimV

So we've dealt with Edersheim and K&D, who were used in support of the revisionist position, but have been show to have supported the orthodox position. Now we turn our attention to Dabney, who is being used to support the revisionist position:



> The true test for determining if one is an heir of the Reformed scholastics is found in the role the Westminster Confession plays in locating final Scriptural authority. Archibald Alexander (1772–1851), Charles Hodge (1797–1878), and the Southern Presbyterian, Robert Dabney (1820–1890) were genuine heirs of Turretin. They focused authority in present, extant copies of the biblical texts (apographa), with all the accompanying textual phenomena, as the “providentially preserved” and sanctioned edition (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8).



And then we look to see what Dabney actually said:


> Robert Dabney:
> 
> No one claims for the Textus Receptus, or common Greek text of the New Testament, any sacred right, as though it represented the ipsissima verba, written by the inspired men in every case...It is therefore not asserted to be above emendation.
> (Dabney, Robert L. Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, Vol. 1, 1891, p. 350, Banner of Truth Trust reprint, 1982, Bible For Today reprint # 2124.)


Main Entry: emen·da·tion 
Pronunciation: \ˌē-ˌmen-ˈdā-shən; ˌe-mən-, e-ˌmen-\ 
Function: noun 
Date: 1536 
1 : the act or practice of emending 
2 : an alteration designed to correct or improve


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> So we've dealt with Edersheim and K&D, who were used in support of the revisionist position, but have been show to have supported the orthodox position. Now we turn our attention to Dabney, who is being used to support the revisionist position:



Which one is the 'revisionist' position and which one is the 'orthodox' position? Is this referring to the poll in the OP?


----------



## TimV

> Which one is the 'revisionist' position and which one is the 'orthodox' position? Is this referring to the poll in the OP?


I was trying to use a less inflammatory word then conspiracy theorists, so I picked revisionist, which isn't really good either. I want a word to describe what the overwhelming number of Bible scholars hold to, and a word which describes what a very small minority hold to.


----------



## Prufrock

Just as a warning though: the _overwhelming number of Bible scholars_ hold to a great many things that confessionals consider offensive: numerical consensus in today's world of biblical studies may not always be a good thing. The question which is more pertinent, however, is what is the position that an overwhelming number of Westminster Assemblymen held?


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> Which one is the 'revisionist' position and which one is the 'orthodox' position? Is this referring to the poll in the OP?
> 
> 
> 
> I was trying to use a less inflammatory word then conspiracy theorists, so I picked revisionist, which isn't really good either. I want a word to describe what the overwhelming number of Bible scholars hold to, and a word which describes what a very small minority hold to.
Click to expand...


Are the Bible scholars you are referring to 'Reformed' or just in general? If you are refering to the majority of 'general' Bible scholars, then how does that have any bearing on the WCF?


----------



## TimV

> Just as a warning though: the overwhelming number of Bible scholars hold to a great many things that confessionals consider offensive:



OK, then I'll go back to overwhelming number of orthodox scholars. And now we can add another one, Dabney, who was also quoted as supporting a position he just didn't hold. Did you read the two quotes four posts above this?


----------



## Prufrock

Sorry Tim, I didn't mean to get back involved, I just wanted to steer it back to the pertinent question, which is _not_ what do later theologians think; but rather, what did the Westminster Divines think?


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> OK, then I'll go back to overwhelming number of orthodox scholars. And now we can add another one, Dabney, who was also quoted as supporting a position he just didn't hold. Did you read the two quotes four posts above this?



I think what Pastor Klein is seeking to clarify is exactly what position you are using Dabney to argue against. I myself am a little confused as to your point, since it was acknowledged a few pages ago in this thread that the TR contains variants which require the science of comparative textual criticism. Further, "TR" means different things to different writers, so you will need to clarify what you mean by the term and what men like Dabney might have meant by it.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

TimV wrote:



> So my question is, since we don't really know if Erasmus had a complete text of Rev. or not, and we certainly don't know for sure that he had the word book in front of him, are there any Greek texts of the Byzantine tradition that are older than the text Erasmus hypothetically used? Where can I find some specifics as to number of Byzantine texts that use tree, and the ages of them? There must be someone you can ask at your Seminary.
> Thanks
> Tim


We do know that Erasmus was translating out of the Greek text in the last several verses of Revelation. There is so much evidence to this that I hardly know where to start. I am, by the way, waiting for my copy of Hoskier in order to reproduce his reasons more perfectly.

First, the claim that Erasmus stated that he was translating out of the Latin into the Greek is another story told by Critical Text "scholars" in order to lessen the authority of the Textus Receptus. See: Erika Rummel, Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986), 93. "It is claimed that Erasmus openly declares in the Annotations of his 1516 edition (page 675) that he "_ex nostris Latinis supplevimus Graeca"_ (supplied the Greek from the Latin). Thus the claim that last six verses of Revelation chapter twenty-two were retranslated from the Vulgate into Greek. However, the reprint of the 1516 edition of Erasmus does not contain this phrase on page 675 of his Annotations, which is the conclusion of his notes on the book of Revelation. Nor is such a phrase found elsewhere in that edition."

Second, Erasmus, who was a Greek scholar, in these last verses would know what were the common words and their spellings. However, in Rev. 22:17 Erasmus uses the word _elthe_ rather than the more common word _erchou_. He is aware of the more common rendering (_erchou_) because he uses it in Rev. 22:7, 12, 20. There must have been a reason for him to use a different word in 22:17, and this suggests that he was not translating out of the Latin, but out of a Greek text which had this rendering.

Third, there is also a consistency in the translation that Erasmus uses which suggests that he was translating from a Greek text rather than from the Latin. The reading in Rev. 22:16 says, "...tou dabid." The Critical Text omits the "tou." The Latin Vulgate does not use the article in its translation. In this matter the Critical Text is closer to the Vulgate than the Textus Receptus.

Vulgate at 22:16 reads, _"ego Iesus misi angelum meum testificari vobis haec in ecclesiis ego sum radix et genus*David* stella splendida et matutina"_, bold mine.

Critical Text reads, _Ego Iesous epempsa ton aggelon mou marturesai humin tauta epi tais ekklesiais. ego eimi he piza kai to genos *Dauid*, ho aster ho lampros oh proinos._

Textus Receptus (Scrivener) at Rev. 22:16, _Ego Iesous epempsa ton aggelon mou marturesai humin tauta epi tais ekklesiais. ego eimi he piza kai to genos *tou Dabid*, ho aster ho lampros kai opthrinos._

(It should be mentioned that it is vital for Greek that the "tou" be referenced to "Dabid." The reason for this is that one can now be assured that "Dabid" is in the Genetive "of David," and is not the direct object nor the subject of the sentence. "Dabid" is a Hebrew proper name being transliterated into Greek, and, because of this none of the Greek endings are placed on it. The article is specific to Gender, Number, and Case. Thus, the article is vital to the Greek here to indentify the word "David" as the Subject, Direct Object, or the Genetive of the sentence. This is a very basic rule of Greek, and any Greek writer would know this. That the CT cuts out the "tou" here is bad Greek.)

As I have looked at the arguments for "tree of life" and "book of life" I think the rendering "book" to be the theologically and grammatically correct reading of the text.

"Tree of life' is found three times in the New Testament: Rev. 2:7, 22:2, 14.

"Book of life" is found seven times in the New Testament: Phil.4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; and 21:27.

The disputed text reads:



> And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


If we read the three verses concerning the Tree of Life correctly, then we must conclude that it is given to believers, and is available for believers only:

Rev. 2:7, "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life..."
Rev. 22:2, "...and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."
Rev. 22:14, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."

As I read it the tree of life is for those who "overcome" it is for the "healing of the nations," and for those who have obeyed the commandments of God. It seems very clear that the Tree of Life is for the Elect only.

However, when we read of the seven verses in the Book of Life, then we are told that one's name can be blotted out of it, Rev. 3:5. Such is the same warning given here in Rev. 22:19.

I will continue this when I get Hoskier's book tomorrow, Lord willing.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TsonMariytho

CalvinandHodges said:


> Dabid



A not-very-important side question -- was the above unusual transliteration of the word "David" (with a beta instead of an upsilon) a tradition begun with the TR, or was this spelling copied unchanged from Erasmus' sources?


----------



## TimV

Thanks, Rob. Remember my question was how many Greek texts use tree and how many use book. I still can't find anyone who can answer what seems to me a question that a specialist would quickly be able to answer. At this point I'm not interested in personal opinions on the subject; it's a simple question of the number of readings and their ages.



> I think what Pastor Klein is seeking to clarify is exactly what position you are using Dabney to argue against.





> Further, "TR" means different things to different writers, so you will need to clarify what you mean by the term and what men like Dabney might have meant by it.


I read this:


> The true test for determining if one is an heir of the Reformed scholastics is found in the role the Westminster Confession plays in locating final Scriptural authority. Archibald Alexander (1772–1851), Charles Hodge (1797–1878), and the Southern Presbyterian, Robert Dabney (1820–1890) were genuine heirs of Turretin. They *focused authority in present, extant copies of the biblical texts* (apographa), with all the accompanying textual phenomena, as the “providentially preserved” and sanctioned edition (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8).


and read this


> Robert Dabney:
> 
> No one claims for the Textus Receptus, or common Greek text of the New Testament, any sacred right


and see a contradiction.

As to the main point I keep coming back to, I've tried to simplify it down to it's basic question: Did NT authors quote from both the Masoretic and Septuagint.


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> Thanks, Rob. Remember my question was how many Greek texts use tree and how many use book. I still can't find anyone who can answer what seems to me a question that a specialist would quickly be able to answer. At this point I'm not interested in personal opinions on the subject; it's a simple question of the number of readings and their ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think what Pastor Klein is seeking to clarify is exactly what position you are using Dabney to argue against.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further, "TR" means different things to different writers, so you will need to clarify what you mean by the term and what men like Dabney might have meant by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read this:
> 
> 
> 
> The true test for determining if one is an heir of the Reformed scholastics is found in the role the Westminster Confession plays in locating final Scriptural authority. Archibald Alexander (1772–1851), Charles Hodge (1797–1878), and the Southern Presbyterian, Robert Dabney (1820–1890) were genuine heirs of Turretin. They *focused authority in present, extant copies of the biblical texts* (apographa), with all the accompanying textual phenomena, as the “providentially preserved” and sanctioned edition (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and read this
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Dabney:
> 
> No one claims for the Textus Receptus, or common Greek text of the New Testament, any sacred right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and see a contradiction.
> 
> As to the main point I keep coming back to, I've tried to simplify it down to it's basic question: Did NT authors quote from both the Masoretic and Septuagint.
Click to expand...


And if it can be proven that the NT authors did quote from both, then it is also proved that the Divines did not have in view the TR when they wrote 1:8? Am I on the right track?


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> I read this:
> 
> 
> 
> The true test for determining if one is an heir of the Reformed scholastics is found in the role the Westminster Confession plays in locating final Scriptural authority. Archibald Alexander (1772–1851), Charles Hodge (1797–1878), and the Southern Presbyterian, Robert Dabney (1820–1890) were genuine heirs of Turretin. They *focused authority in present, extant copies of the biblical texts* (apographa), with all the accompanying textual phenomena, as the “providentially preserved” and sanctioned edition (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8).
> 
> 
> 
> and read this
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Dabney:
> 
> No one claims for the Textus Receptus, or common Greek text of the New Testament, any sacred right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and see a contradiction.
Click to expand...


Not sure why you would see a contradiction there. Dabney goes on to state, p. 351, "As more numerous collations of ancient documents are made the number of various readings is, of course, greatly increased; but yet the effect of these comparisons is, on the whole, *to confirm the substantial correctness of the received text more and more*." In other words,, he was working WITHIN the TR tradition, not seeking by radical criticism to undermine it. This is precisely what reformed teachers have historically contended for.



TimV said:


> As to the main point I keep coming back to, I've tried to simplify it down to it's basic question: Did NT authors quote from both the Masoretic and Septuagint.



This simplification is unhelpful. 1. The NT nowhere mentions the "Septuaginta." 2. Christian emendation of OT texts is well known. 3. Even if NT penmen did quote from a pre-Christian Greek translation, the fact is that their rendering follows the Hebrew more times than this hypothesised translation, and thereby establishes the well known principle of ad fontes. 4. Where the Hebrew is not strictly followed, it can't be shown that NT penmen were "quoting," and thereby accrediting a textual source outside the Hebrew.


----------



## TimV

_This simplification is unhelpful. 1. The NT nowhere mentions the "Septuaginta." 2. Christian emendation of OT texts is well known. 3. *Even if NT penmen did quote from a pre-Christian Greek translation, the fact is that their rendering follows the Hebrew more times than this hypothesised translation,* and thereby establishes the well known principle of ad fontes. 4. Where the Hebrew is not strictly followed, it can't be shown that NT penmen were "quoting," and thereby accrediting a textual source outside the Hebrew. _

Just so everything is clear to everyone, do you believe that NT authors quoted even once both the Hebrew text and another Greek text that differs from the Hebrew text?


----------



## Prufrock

Tim,

I thought some thoughts from older Reformed divines regarding the LXX might be useful, since you find this quite important to the topic.

1.) Owen thought that some places where the NT seems to follow the LXX was because the LXX was later fixed to match the NT. See the following passage from his commentary on Hebrews: 


> (On Hebrews 10.5-7)
> 8. The words, therefore, in this place are the words whereby the apostle
> expressed the sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost in those used in the
> psalmist, or that which was intended in them. He did not take them from
> the translation of the LXX., but used them himself, to express the sense of
> the Hebrew text. For although we should not adhere precisely unto the
> opinion that all the quotations out of the Old Testament in the-New, which
> agree in words with the present translation of the LXX., were by the
> scribes of that translation transferred out of the New Testament into it, —
> which yet is far more probable than the contrary opinion, that the words of
> the translation are made use of in the New Testament, even when they
> differ from the original, — yet sundry things herein are certain and
> acknowledged; as,
> (1.) That the penmen of the New Testament do not oblige themselves unto
> that translation, but in many places do precisely render the words of the
> original text, where that translation differs from it.
> (2.) That they do oftentimes express the sense of the testimony which they
> quote in words of their own, neither agreeing with that translation nor
> exactly answering the original Hebrew.
> (3.) That sundry passages have been unquestionably taken out of the New
> Testament, and inserted into that translation; which I have elsewhere
> proved by undeniable instances. And I no way doubt but it hath so fallen
> out in this place, where no account can be given of the translation of the
> LXX. as the words now are in it.



William Whitaker held that the LXX copies we have today are surely most corrupt from their original versions. (_Disputations_, II.3)

Turretin, however, is where I will focus most. I think he gives two very interesting answers to LXX use by the apostles. The first:


> The apostles used this version [the LXX] not because they believed it to be authentic and divine, but because it was then the most used and most universally received and because (where a regard for the sense and truth was preserved) they were unwilling either rashly to dispute or to create a doubt in the minds of the more weak, but by a holy prudence left unchanged what when changed would give offense, especially when it would answer their purpose. However, they did this in such a manner that sometimes when it seemed necessary, when the version of the Septuagint seemed to be not only unsuitable but untrue, they preferred the source. (II.14.7)



In other words, he claims they sometimes did quote from the LXX, not because it was authentic scripture, but rather they used it _only_ when it did match the original Hebrew and that for the sake of those accustomed to it. Secondly, and most importantly, he says the following:



> The quotations in the New Testament from the Septuagint are not authentic _per se_, but _per accidens_ inasmuch as they were drawn into the sacred context by the evangelists under the influence of the Holy Spirit. (II.14.8)



The fact that they used it did not mean it was authentic in itself; the specific verses which he claims they _did_ use become authentic upon that basis, but this is wholly different.

In other words, Turretin can claim that the apostles did, on occasion, quote from the LXX, but this does not mean that they allowed it to be an authentic version or translation of scripture _en masse_. They used it when it reflected the true and authentic scripture.

The problem of the LXX is not new; the Reformers were certainly not ignorant of it, and yet the possibility (or even certainty) of its use in the NT did not undermine or alter their view that the Hebrew autographs and apographs (and _only_ these) were authentic.


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> Just so everything is clear to everyone, do you believe that NT authors quoted even once both the Hebrew text and another Greek text that differs from the Hebrew text?



I am open to being shown some place where the NT penmen "quoted" from a Greek "text." As you make your case to depend on it, you bear the burden of showing it.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Prufrock said:


> The fact that they used it did not mean it was authentic in itself; the specific verses which he claims they _did_ use become authentic upon that basis, but this is wholly different.
> 
> In other words, Turretin can claim that the apostles did, on occasion, quote from the LXX, but this does not mean that they allowed it to be an authentic version or translation of scripture _en masse_. They used it when it reflected the true and authentic scripture.
> 
> The problem of the LXX is not new; the Reformers were certainly not ignorant of it, and yet the possibility (or even certainty) of its use in the NT did not undermine or alter their view that the Hebrew autographs and apographs (and _only_ these) were authentic.



The above sounds largely correct to me. The editors of my edition of the LXX (Zondervan) assert that though the authors of the NT did use the LXX, they tended to correct in the direction of the MT where the LXX is most divergent.


----------



## TimV

> And if it can be proven that the NT authors did quote from both, then it is also proved that the Divines did not have in view the TR when they wrote 1:8? Am I on the right track?



If NT authors did quote from both, and by all reasonable criteria they did, the burden of proof would be on the contrarian; i.e. that the contrarians would have to prove conclusively that the Divines did not have this view.

Because if the Divines held to what the Church has always taught, they couldn't have meant that God's Word, kept pure in all ages, was written down specifically and exclusively in one text.

Since some people here are spending so much time interpreting every jot and tittle of WCF 1.8, perhaps I can ask at this time if they expect all Elder candidates of the PCA, OPC etc.. to declare exceptions if they believe parts of the OT e.g. Daniel were written in Aramaic and not Hebrew.



> “The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.”


For any of the 23 people who voted yes in the poll, may I ask if any of you think Elders who believe Daniel was written and inspired in Aramaic are in violation of their vows?

-----Added 12/15/2008 at 11:45:09 EST-----



> In other words, Turretin can claim that the apostles did, on occasion, quote from the LXX, but this does not mean that they allowed it to be an authentic version or translation of scripture en masse. They used it when it reflected the true and authentic scripture.





> I am open to being shown some place where the NT penmen "quoted" from a Greek "text." As you make your case to depend on it, you bear the burden of showing it.


Does that count? What more will you be satisfied with than to show that than 99% of orthodox scholars agree with what you just "largely agree"d with?


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> In other words, Turretin can claim that the apostles did, on occasion, quote from the LXX, but this does not mean that they allowed it to be an authentic version or translation of scripture en masse. They used it when it reflected the true and authentic scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am open to being shown some place where the NT penmen "quoted" from a Greek "text." As you make your case to depend on it, you bear the burden of showing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does that count? What more will you be satisfied with than to show that than 99% of orthodox scholars agree with what you just "largely agree"d with?
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't count, as Turretin is speaking within a certain context which has to do with the authenticity of the fountains, and the language he uses is loosely adapted for the purpose. Your case depends on a certain line of argument which you need to establish by evidence. So it's time for you to bring forth the evidence that the NT penmen "quoted" from a Greek "text;" you only need to demonstrate "one" instance of it.


----------



## TsonMariytho

TimV said:


> Since some people here are spending so much time interpreting every jot and tittle of WCF 1.8, perhaps I can ask at this time if they expect all Elder candidates of the PCA, OPC etc.. to declare exceptions if they believe parts of the OT e.g. Daniel were written in Aramaic and not Hebrew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.”
> 
> 
> 
> For any of the 23 people who voted yes in the poll, may I ask if any of you think Elders who believe Daniel was written and inspired in Aramaic are in violation of their vows?
Click to expand...



The above point is well made -- I think it's obvious the WCF framers expected their readers to use common sense, both with respect to the above, and to the "kept pure" idea, which we all agree allows for correction as our knowledge of Biblical manuscripts improves (we disagree as to the extent of the allowed correction).


The longest Aramaic portions I'm aware of:

Daniel 2:4 through 7:28 is in Aramaic.
Ezra 4:8-6:18 and 7:12-26 are in Aramaic.


----------



## TimV

> So it's time for you to bring forth the evidence that the NT penmen "quoted" from a Greek "text;" you only need to demonstrate "one" instance of it.


I've been doing that for days, and for purposes of emphasis using mainly sources contrarians have used to make their case. The last was Keil and Delitzsch


> and it is in accordance with this sense that it is paraphrased in Mar_4:12, whereas in *the three other passages in which the words are quoted in the New Testament (viz., Matthew, John, and Acts) the Septuagint rendering *is adopted


but I can't convince you of that anymore than I can convince certain people that Arab hijackers brought down the two towers by flying planes into them because you make the burden of proof impossible.



> In other words, Turretin can claim that the apostles did, on occasion, quote from the LXX, but this does not mean that they allowed it to be an authentic version or translation of scripture en masse. They used it when it reflected the true and authentic scripture.



All we have to do is to show that during the time of Christ there was

a) a parallel situation with our own, where there was more than one textual tradition
b)and that both of these varying texts were quoted by NT authors

to prove that the Word of God has been kept pure through all ages, but not in one, single, volume that somebody could specifically point to.

I do admit that the above still doesn't prove what was actually going on in the minds of the Divines. But the way 1.8 has been interpreted is in line with the above. And that is why no major Reformed church has required an exception to 1.8 by Elder candidates for not holding to the tiny minority AVer position. And it is not going to change anytime soon.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

I ask these of TimV:

If the New Testament can quote from the pagan Greek poet Aratus, Acts 17:28, then why can it not quote from a Greek paraphrase of the Hebrew Scriptures? What is more: are the writers of the NT allowed to give the "sense" (Hebrew _Raz_) of a passage in the OT? Or, do they have to adhere to a strict literal translation? (Hebrew _Peshat_). If so, then how do you get a literal translation from the Hebrew to the Greek?

If we were to allow your assertion that there are quotations from the LXX in the New Testament, then what would be your point? Some claim that the NT quotes from the Apocrypha. Should we then include the Apocrypha in the Canon as well?

I am still awaiting the copy of Hoskier.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TimV

> I ask these of TimV:
> 
> If the New Testament can quote from the pagan Greek poet Aratus, Acts 17:28, then why can it not quote from a Greek paraphrase of the Hebrew Scriptures?


Hi Rob
The analogy would be if Aratus was quoted one way in the Hebrew text, and in a slightly different way in the Greek text, and the NT author preferred the Greek text.



> If we were to allow your assertion that there are quotations from the LXX in the New Testament


First, let's be clear that it's not a small time contractor from California with a degree in agriculture that's making this claim. This claim is made by 99% of people who've studied the issue.



> then what would be your point? Some claim that the NT quotes from the Apocrypha. Should we then include the Apocrypha in the Canon as well?


I'm using this admittedly complex tack to show why no large denomination holding to the WCF requires or expects officer candidates to make an exemption to 1.8 based on the AVer interpretation of history.



> I am still awaiting the copy of Hoskier.


Thanks, and in the mean time, I would still be very interested in finding out whether any of those 23 people who voted yes would also require officer candidates to make exception to 1.8 based on a man's belief that some parts of the OT contained Aramaic writings that are Authentic.


----------



## Prufrock

TimV said:


> Thanks, and in the mean time, I would still be very interested in finding out whether any of those 23 people who voted yes would also require officer candidates to make exception to 1.8 based on a man's belief that some parts of the OT contained Aramaic writings that are Authentic.



Interesting question, but not quite the same. The question concerns the apographs, and they had the same Hebrew text that we have today. There's no ambiguity: we know what they meant. The fact that there is Aramaic intermixed in some portions does not undermine that anymore than the few Aramaic words in Mark's gospel undermine the fact that the New Testament is written in Greek.

Or do you disagree?

-----Added 12/16/2008 at 01:39:22 EST-----

Also, I think there is some confusion and speaking past one another between you (Tim) and some others: they are simply saying (I believe) that using LXX wording (or wording similar thereunto) to represent the Hebrew is _not_ the same as "quoting" a Greek "text." It is using familiar wording to "quote" a Hebrew "text."

Whether or not you agree with that statement is another matter; it seems very clear that this is how the Reformers and Westminster Divines thought. 

Do you agree that they thought this (whether or not you think they were right or wrong to do so)?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Going back to my post #154, TimV is right that it at least _appears_ I am claiming Keil and Delitzsch supported my view re the LXX, whereas that is not so. My claim in fact was they concurred with other commentators that in Psalm 14:1–3 the LXX’s reading came from Romans via Christian scribes, and not the other way around, i.e., from the LXX into Romans. And that the only extant copies of the LXX are what we have from these "Christian scribes". We do not have whatever existed in the days of Christ. And my remarks pertained to one case study. My fault in not being more precise.

And TimV's insistence on precision of words used – and their definitions – is really right on. As is his demand for the integrity of evidences presented. I appreciate being held accountable to high standards like that.

He has a good point re Edersheim's use of the word "dialect"; however, that other commentators use it in much the same sense ought to give one pause in going after him as "sloppy". Yet, after interacting with Tim, I would prefer to see it written, "Aramaic a dialect of the Hebrew*s*", or "Aramaic a dialect of the Semitic languages".

Re Edersheim's views of the LXX, they do not concur with mine, but his views of what language Christ spoke to the Pharisees, priests, and scribes do. It is very rare we find those who agree with us in all things! For instance, Edersheim was persuaded by Westcott (his commentary on John) that the Pericope De Adultera was not genuine, but, after reading Burgon's defense of the last twelve verses of Mark, that _that_ portion of Scripture _was_ genuine. A mixed bag.

Incidentally, Hermonta, I do believe that the New Testament does not quote the Greek O.T. where it differs from the original Hebrew. There are other explanations for the apparent similarities, which is one of the reasons I posted the Psalm 14:3 thing.

----------

Rob, 

I think you set a bad example _and precedent_ *on this already volatile forum* by calling James White names: "lackey", "intellectually dishonest". To publicly demean an elder and pastor in the church of Christ, charging him with wrongdoing because he does not concur with your understanding of textual issues, and because he does not return your (and others') emails to concede a point (valid though it be), is to violate many Biblical commands, the first and foremost that we are to deal with one another in love. R.C. Sproul, in his Developing Christian Character audio series, teaches on the concept of _Judgment of Charity_, whereby we seek to put the best "spin" on an opponent's perceived shortcomings rather than the worst, unless irrefutable evidence demands otherwise. I am as aware of Dr. White's views and writings re the KJV, the TR, and the CT as you, and yet I could go have a meal with him and enjoy fellowship. What's the difference between you and me in this? Though he and I disagree strongly on the textual issue (and baptism!), he is my brother, and a godly man. I will not put a bad spin on his motives or reasons re his approach to evidences in the textual debate, as there is something more important than such issues the Lord said we *had to* observe, and that is to love one another as He loves us. Is that just syrupy religious talk, or a demand of the Holy One?

There is a way of disagreeing – and of protesting error – without violating the commandment: "Speak not evil one of another" (James 4:11). To tear down another's reputation, especially a pastor's, and that in public for all the world to see (as this is an open forum) is a form of spiritual murder (1 John 3:15). There is a concealed (though not very well) hostility – hatred is not too strong a word for it – toward the person verbally abused.

Which brings me to the matter of marginalizing brethren due to their differing beliefs. I have in mind here the "KJV onlies" to whom, so it has been said, it is appropriate – "natural" – to be "sarcastic, dismissive and even contemptuous". To relegate someone to marginal status is to place them at the outer edge or lowest level of the social order. Ethnic groups have been marginalized by racist bigots, women by misogynists, the poor by the rich, and in the church of the Holy One those of differing views of the Bible by their opponents. That Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger do this to those who do not hold to the KJV is a disgrace and a sin. That some in the Presbyterian and Reformed churches do this to the KJV folks is worse, because of the greater spiritual light (which the doctrines of grace bring) and understanding of the Gospel of Grace we have.

To _marginalize_ brothers and sisters whose Protector and Elder Brother is the One who poured out His life's blood on the cross for them is, beyond wickedness, foolishness, as such folly cries out for chastening. 

There is a command, the second greatest of all the Law of God, and which the King emphasized when He said, "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you" (John 15:12). Jesus spoke on this again, through the mouth of His apostle, 

We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. (1 John 3:14).​
Knowledge means nothing if one is devoid of genuine affection for his brothers. It is more like the devil waxing wise with a gloat of superiority, sarcastic, dismissive and contemptuous to the Savior's little brothers. 

Contempt: lack of respect accompanied by a feeling of intense dislike. The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless.

To marginalize people is to say they have no worth, and no standing among those who are "in".

The Lord says that we may have great knowledge (and brilliant intelligence), but if it is without love, we are nothing (1 Cor 13:2). Like a devil. Full of knowledge – and death.

Love edifies, and if a man loves God (more than himself), the same is known of him: for he who loves God loves his brother also. And if a man say, "I love God" and hates his brother, he is a liar (1 Cor 8:1, 3; 1 John 4:21, 20).

The world looks and sees the meanness and go-for-the-jugular spirit over the issue of what is the best Scripture of the God of love and holiness and no doubt says, "What a house of clever devils – see how they hate one another!"

We _*all*_ have our gross failings, immaturities, and sins, the Presbyterians and Reformed, as well as the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists, the Critical / Eclectic Text advocates, and the King James advocates – we _*all*_ are wretched at heart in one way or another, and we all need undeserved favor, all camps of the Lord's people, one no less than all the others.

All this to say, I am grieved when I am supposed to be having a conversation about things holy, and yet the spirit of the conversation is unholy, "descended not from above, but earthly, sensual, devilish" (James 3:15).


----------



## TimV

> Yet, after interacting with Tim, I would prefer to see it written, "Aramaic a dialect of the Hebrews", or "Aramaic a dialect of the Semitic languages".


I appreciate your gracious language as always, but there are no living scholars that specialise in the subject that agree with you. Whether Edersheim et. al. were sloppy or not specialists or whether language has changed from their days, no living person of note calls Aramaic a dialect of Hebrew. Whether it was 600 years before Christ


> 2Ki 18:26 Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebnah, and Joah, said to the Rabshakeh, "Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it. Do not speak to us in the language of Judah within the hearing of the people who are on the wall.


During the time of Christ or today, they are not, in 21st century English dialects of each other. Even softening it to "Aramaic a dialect of the Hebrews" is incorrect. Rather, as all the three scholars currently in the field that I've quoted on this thread have said, "Palestinian Aramaic, a dialect of Aramaic spoken by several ethnic groups in New Testament times in Palestine, mutually unintelligible with any form of Hebrew ever spoken".


----------



## TsonMariytho

TimV said:


> Yet, after interacting with Tim, I would prefer to see it written, "Aramaic a dialect of the Hebrews", or "Aramaic a dialect of the Semitic languages".
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate your gracious language as always, but there are no living scholars that specialise in the subject that agree with you.
Click to expand...


I think this is too harsh, Tim. Unless I'm missing something, Steve is not claiming that Aramaic is a dialect of the Hebrew language.

As to whether we can call it a "dialect of the Hebrews", I guess all you would need are some Israelites who speak it to call it that, at least informally. I think we can safely assert this much.

As to calling Aramaic and Hebrew co-dialects of a wider Semitic language family, I think we already agreed that was a valid current use of the word. (EDIT -- with the clear understanding that that use of "dialects" denotes entirely separate languages.)


----------



## Thomas2007

TimV said:


> I appreciate that, but my point has to do with how a person evaluates evidence. If virtually all of orthodox scholarship is unanimous, including sources Steve himself quotes from to make his case, I'm under no obligation to treat revisionist literature as having the same value as the overwhelming bulk of orthodox evidence. K&D would have been shocked to have learned that their names were brought up to support a position the opposite of which they believed.



Tim,

The "revisionist" position is the critical schools which the majority of scholarship holds to.

The Protestant scholastic defense of the New Testament doesn't arise until after Calvin and Beza's work (theological and textual) had solidified the "Received Text" as not just a publishers advertisement by the Elezevirs in 1623 but as an objective reality upon which Tyndales translation is based, the Great Bible of King Henry the VIII, the Geneva Bible of the Puritans, the Bishops Bible and the Authorized Version.

Tregelles notes:

"Beza's text was during his life in very general use among Protestants; they seemed to feel that enough had been done to establish it, and they relied on it as giving them a firm basis....After the appearance of the texts of Stephanus and Beza, many Protestants ceased from all inquiry into the authorities on which the text of the New Testament in their hands was based." Samuel Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament with Remarks on its Revision upon Critical Principles, 1854, p 33 - 35​
As soon as publishing had distributed this work far and wide it became the Protestant standard and continued for three centuries, not based upon ignorance, but because the other view being championed came directly from the Tridentine attack upon the Reformation. What were initially textual matters, when coupled to the polemic against Romanism, became highly charged doctrinal matters. In the historical Reformed position on the texts and their orientation to them, the texts behind the modern critical school of thought don't pose a problem, they enhance and support it. 

The historical Romanist position on the texts, today, has become the majority position held to and taught by the schools. This is simply a historical fact, not to imply that one that holds to the critical text also holds to popish doctrines. Rather that the textual position originates there and it is counter-reformational in it's scope and intent. It was specifically developed to attack the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and deny it as a valid doctrinal position asserting the Magisterium as Authoritative. While the modern schools don't champion the Magisterium today, they do champion scholars and scholarship, or man's wisdom, as being Authoritative - hence, it poses the same threat.

We are given a revisionist representation of Protestant history from modern critical schools that our Protestant father's, such as John Calvin and Theodore Beza, had no other option but to use the Received Text. That they didn’t have the evidence we do today, and on and on, when in fact they did - they just didn’t have the quantity of evidence, the quantity of which has only amplified with greater numerical preponderance the text type deliberately chosen by Eramus, Stephanus and Beza. The modern claims simply aren’t true but are fanciful misrepresentations, and their continual work since the pillars of Wescott and Hort fell, have proved the Protestant text.

Once Rome began appealing to Greek manuscripts that supported their traditions and novel teachings, which was in contradiction to the Reformers claim of Ad Fonte, as was exhibited to them by the Council of Trent with Vaticanus and Codex D then, and I’m quoting Theodore Letis: “Protestants would have to realize that not just any Greek document would serve their purpose, not even a very old one! Now they would have to be even more careful in basing their editions on the most objectively compelling evidence. It was the majority of documents concurring with each other that offered such security. And documents that exhibited features of eccentricity would now be all the more suspect. Since Calvin returned to Erasmus and Stephanus coupled with Beza’s adverse sentiments on Coline’s edition, a consensus has probably been reached to avoid an edition that had an unhealthy independence.”



TimV said:


> I was trying to use a less inflammatory word then conspiracy theorists, so I picked revisionist, which isn't really good either. I want a word to describe what the overwhelming number of Bible scholars hold to, and a word which describes what a very small minority hold to.



The word you're looking for in reference to the majority is Enlightenment Criticism, the minority hold to Sacred Criticism, the two have a completely different orientation to the issues.

Instead of continually accusing people or using disparaging language and presentations to make assertions, that seem in the main to be based upon a lack of knowledge, maybe you could consider trying to understand that the two different camps hold to two different presuppositions and orientations to the issues involved. 

Repeatedly stating that our position is wrong because we don't hold to your presupposition doesn't prove anything - we have and will continually try to explain that we don't hold to your presupposition because we believe it is a wrong presupposition.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Hello Thomas,



Thomas2007 said:


> That they didn’t have the evidence we do today, and on and on, when in fact they did - they just didn’t have the quantity of evidence, the quantity of which has only amplified with greater numerical preponderance the text type deliberately chosen by Eramus, Stephanus and Beza.



Either you are arguing for a majority text approach to textual criticism, e.g. the work of Hodges/Farstad, Robinson/Pierpont, or I'm not sure what you are saying above. To put it another way, the above does not seem to be compatible with the TR priority view. Could you clarify where you're coming from here?



Thomas2007 said:


> The modern claims simply aren’t true but are fanciful misrepresentations, and their continual work since the pillars of Wescott and Hort fell, have proved the Protestant text.



I believe the pillars are quite intact. While nobody uses W&H's Greek NT anymore for translating, their core principles of textual criticism have been extremely widely adopted in the field. A huge number of Christians today use a translation of scripture based on the tradition of textual criticism they pioneered.

If widespread use in the Church -- no, let's narrow it even further, and say widespread use in the Reformed churches -- indicates God's special favor on a translation or a composite critical NT text, then the NIV, ESV, and NASB are surely favored by God by being put to work in the trenches of ministry all over the world. Not to mention the work of Bible translators such as those trained by and affiliated with Tyndale, where you also find wide use of the UBS Greek NT.


----------



## Grymir

What a great post Thomas!! Mega-Dittos!

-----Added 12/16/2008 at 05:08:24 EST-----



TsonMariytho said:


> I believe the pillars are quite intact. While nobody uses W&H's Greek NT anymore for translating, their core principles of textual criticism have been extremely widely adopted in the field. A huge number of Christians today use a translation of scripture based on the tradition of textual criticism they pioneered.



That's the issue that I have. The textual criticism methods they used. The supposed 'neutrality' position.

And how it relates to WCF 1.8 is giving me pause to seriously consider it, in ways I haven't before.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hello:

Mr. Rafalsky wrote:

Rob, 



> I think you set a bad example and precedent on this already volatile forum by calling James White names: "lackey", "intellectually dishonest". To publicly demean an elder and pastor in the church of Christ, charging him with wrongdoing because he does not concur with your understanding of textual issues, and because he does not return your (and others') emails to concede a point (valid though it be), is to violate many Biblical commands, the first and foremost that we are to deal with one another in love. R.C. Sproul, in his Developing Christian Character audio series, teaches on the concept of Judgment of Charity, whereby we seek to put the best "spin" on an opponent's perceived shortcomings rather than the worst, unless irrefutable evidence demands otherwise. I am as aware of Dr. White's views and writings re the KJV, the TR, and the CT as you, and yet I could go have a meal with him and enjoy fellowship. What's the difference between you and me in this? Though he and I disagree strongly on the textual issue (and baptism!), he is my brother, and a godly man. I will not put a bad spin on his motives or reasons re his approach to evidences in the textual debate, as there is something more important than such issues the Lord said we had to observe, and that is to love one another as He loves us. Is that just syrupy religious talk, or a demand of the Holy One?
> 
> There is a way of disagreeing – and of protesting error – without violating the commandment: "Speak not evil one of another" (James 4:11). To tear down another's reputation, especially a pastor's, and that in public for all the world to see (as this is an open forum) is a form of spiritual murder (1 John 3:15). There is a concealed (though not very well) hostility – hatred is not too strong a word for it – toward the person verbally abused.


Thank you, Steve, for that exhortation. The command for brotherly love is not one that is irrelevant or syrupy. However, we should not make the command "syrupy." I have not listened to RC Sproul's series, but I do know that love can seem harsh, and use harsh language as a means of Reformation. Jesus does so with Peter, "Get behind me Satan," and also with the Syro-Phonecian woman - calling her a "dog."

As far as James White is concerned - he is a public figure who has made public (and erroneous) statments. As I have mentioned earlier I have sought to deal with this privately. However, dealing with public statements publically is not wrong. Apparently, you think it appropriate to chastise me in this public forum? Are you violating your own standards?

James 4:11 is not exactly saying what you are intending it to say - since you have made this "public" I will also deal with it publically. The whole passage reads:



> Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.


Have I judged James White to eternal damnation? If I came across as such, then I will repent in dust and ashes, and fast for 2 days. The key here is "speak evil of his brother." If I have born false witness against my brother, than again, I will repent in dust and ashes. As I have mentioned before - it is not uncharitable if it is true.

Christ publically denounced the Scribes and Pharisees. Paul publically denounced Peter, as well as the Sinner in Corinth. Matthew Henry:



> The Christians to whom James wrote were apt to speak very hard things of one another, because of their differences about indifferent things. "Now," says the apostle, "he who censures and condemns his brother for not agreeing with him in those things which the law of God has left indifferrent thereby censures and condemns the law, as if it had done ill in leaving them indifferent. He who quarrels with his brother, and condemns him for the sake of any thing not determined in the word of God, does thereby reflect on that word of God, as if it were not a perfect rule. Let us take heed of judging the law, for the law of the Lord is perfect; if men break the law, leave that to judge them; if they do not break it, let us not judge them."


I am glad that you have fellowship with Dr. White, that you sat down and ate a meal with him, and that you may have an influence over him for good. I also ate with him, listened to him preach in a church in person, and I even drove him to one of his lectures when I was living on Long Island.

However, he is a man whose teaching ministry reaches thousands, and, on this subject, he is, consciously or unconsciously, turning many people astray on a matter that is vital to True Religion - the Text of the Scriptures. To blow the trumpet in Zion, to sound the horn that false teachings are being promoted in the Church does not fall under the auspices of "good manners." Psalm 139:21.

If you are at all implying that James White is my elder, and that I must submit to him, then I think you need to read up on ecclesialogy. James White is not my elder, and, if he applied for eldership in my church I would vote against him, because I do not believe he is qualified.

I respect Dr. White for his work on Mormons, Roman Catholics, and Muslims. In these areas he has done marvelous work, and has promoted the gospel of Jesus Christ among them on a level I may never reach. Textual Criticism is the bath water of his theology. 

It is a grief to me whenever I hear him speak on such a matter.

After saying, "Judge not lest ye be Judged" Jesus tells us to "Give not what is Holy to the dogs - nor cast your pearls before swine," which requires us to make a judgment about people.

Maybe you can help me with a matter: How does Christ, Paul, and Peter use "harsh" sounding language - yet fail to violate James 4:11?

You have thrown more aspersions at me, and have "judged" me more than anything I have done to James White - why all the hostility?

Grace and Peace,

Rob


----------



## TsonMariytho

Gentlemen, may I suggest we redirect the thread back to the applicability of textual criticism to the "kept pure in all ages" teaching of the Confession?

Anybody have another observation related to that?

Here's one:

The letter of that principle in the WCF is directed at the original language scriptures. However, the spirit of the principle is the recognition that God preserves his scriptures for the use of his church in all ages. If we believe that, and we recognize that the CT (Critical Text) is coming into widespread use by millions and millions of Christians, including many Reformed believers, doesn't it become easier for us to grant the legitimacy of the CT?

I keep harping on this, because I have interacted with Reformed brothers of the TR tradition who seem to argue for the TR's primacy because it was in such wide use during the Reformation, even if they can't provide a text-critical justification for every reading. But if God grants similar widespread use to the Critical Text, shouldn't it make us all take pause, and ask the question about whether the Spirit of God is favoring the text by putting it to work? (I know I'm repeating myself now, sorry.)


----------



## Prufrock

I think you may be too far divorcing the meaning from the literal statement: besides, since the very foundation of the CT is that the text _has not_ been kept pure in all ages and must be rediscovered, I think your proposal would be a hard argument to make.

The problem lies in that what is being so widely used now is not any text which was kept pure or received by the church; it was constructed (and that by the academy, and not the church, I might add).

(I used to hold a [roughly] similar position to what you're advocating)


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> All we have to do is to show that during the time of Christ there was
> 
> a) a parallel situation with our own, where there was more than one textual tradition
> b)and that both of these varying texts were quoted by NT authors
> 
> to prove that the Word of God has been kept pure through all ages, but not in one, single, volume that somebody could specifically point to.



Then why don't you meet your own burden of proof? Surely it can't be that difficult to show just one place where the NT penmen "quoted" a "Greek text," especially considering how dogmatically certain you seem about the whole thing. Quoting from some authority won't do; please demonstrate it from the text of the NT itself.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Prufrock said:


> I think you may be too far divorcing the meaning from the literal statement: besides, since the very foundation of the CT is that the text _has not_ been kept pure in all ages and must be rediscovered, I think your proposal would be a hard argument to make.
> 
> The problem lies in that what is being so widely used now is not any text which was kept pure or received by the church; it was constructed (and that by the academy, and not the church, I might add).
> 
> (I used to hold a [roughly] similar position to what you're advocating)



How many of the readings from the CT are from manuscripts the church hasn't had wide access to for much of its history?

In many cases, the CT simply deletes what are regarded as later interpolations; certain readings which, in the opinion of the editors, are merely scribal glosses improperly elevated to text status. Thus in many, many places, the CT is wholly contained within the TR. So the problem isn't quite as stark as it might sound at first blush.

Is that a fair observation?


----------



## MW

As noted earlier, even if it could be proved that the NT "quotes" from a "Greek text" (which is still far from being established), the fact would still remain that the NT expressly adopts Hebrew MT readings over and against the so-called LXX. E.g., Matt 11:29 adopts the saying of Jer 6:16 in the Hebrew, "rest," not the Septuagint, which reads "purification." That being the case, if the NT gives credence to a translation by quoting a Greek text, by the same force of evidence it removes the possibility of appealing to this other textual tradition as primary, only affording it a secondary place behind the authentic Hebrew text.


----------



## TimV

Isaiah 29 13-14 Septuagint


> And the Lord has said, [e] This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.
> Therefore behold I will proceed to remove this people, and I will remove them: and [f] I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will hide the understanding of the prudent.



Same passage Hebrew ESV



> Isa 29:13 And the Lord said: "Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men,
> Isa 29:14 therefore, behold, I will again do wonderful things with this people, with wonder upon wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden."



From Mark 7 ESV


> Mar 7:6 And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
> Mar 7:7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'
> Mar 7:8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."



If the what Christ said in the above verse, and remember He said He was quoting Isaiah, did He only draw on the Hebrew text?

To those who have been patiently following, please look at this through the prism of God "kept pure His Word in all ages" but not necessarily in one single manuscript. Christ quoted Isaiah. What Isaiah really said, and and the words He used are not all found in the Hebrew. Some are recorded in the Greek translation as well. So the words are all there, but one has to use more than one text to find them.

Now look at it through the prism of the AVer theory, that one single manuscript tradition contained the Word of God in "all ages" including the time of Christ.

Which makes more sense?


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> If the what Christ said in the above verse, and remember He said He was quoting Isaiah, did He only draw on the Hebrew text?
> 
> To those who have been patiently following, please look at this through the prism of God "kept pure His Word in all ages" but not necessarily in one single manuscript. Christ quoted Isaiah. What Isaiah really said, and and the words He used are not all found in the Hebrew. Some are recorded in the Greek translation as well. So the words are all there, but one has to use more than one text to find them.
> 
> Now look at it through the prism of the AVer theory, that one single manuscript tradition contained the Word of God in "all ages" including the time of Christ.



First, there is no proof that a Greek text is quoted; it may have been a Greek Targum tradition.

Secondly, you assume the words of Christ are not found in the Hebrew of Isaiah. There is no reason why the original Hebrew might not be understood as including the nuance which is included in the Greek rendering of the Gospel; it is afterall an eastern language being translated into a western language, and therefore allows great scope as to how to convey the meaning of the original.

Thirdly, even supposing that the the Gospel "quotes" a "Greek text," this adds nothing to our knowledge of variant textual traditions, because the Greek attempts to translate the Hebrew. It therefore falls under the category of "versions," not of mss., so far as text-critical theory is concerned. And with regards to the TR, there is undoubted support amongst the versions for its textual tradition. Hence, just as the Greek text often supports the Hebrew text, so also versions might be used as support for the TR.


----------



## Thomas2007

Prufrock said:


> Tim, I thought some thoughts from older Reformed divines regarding the LXX might be useful, since you find this quite important to the topic.




Paul,

What has not been pointed out in this thread is that the Protestant position on the Greek New Testament is derived from the Protestant position on the Hebrew as the Providentially Preserved fountain of the Old Testament. Hence, the Protestant position on the New Testament was a necessary emphasis and consequence derived from the former.

Louis Cappel raised both the issue of the late origin of the vowel points and the related methodological premise of the correction of the Masoretic Text on the basis of ancient versions such as the Vaticanus. This resulted in explosive debates because it impugned the doctrinal implications on the Protestant insistence on the *authority* of the text in its original tongue and the way in which the text itself provided *certainty* in theological knowledge. 

The opponents of the Protestant text understand this very well, it is modern Protestant themselves that are ignorant of the issues and debates that existed during the Reformation and scholastic defense that resulted and what that means to the standing of the Received Text and its Confessional Defense.

The historic Protestant defense against the Romanist textual arguments of variants not altering any essential doctrine, has been turned on it's head in direct contradiction to the necessity of a controversy of religion. It's really a quite ingenious attack upon the Protestants and has worked very well to undermine them. Muller notes this problem:

"Examination of the documents of the seventeenth century leads us ineluctably to the conclusion that normative Protestantism itself, because of its theological rootedness in the text of Scripture, was as much responsible for the rise of the critical method as it was for the eventual dogmatic opposition to that method. Indeed, the seventeenth century witnessed an "orthodox" development of critical tools and, accordingly, an increasing worry on the part of those same orthodox over the connection between text and doctrine - whereas only in the eighteenth century, with the increasing dominance of rationalism and deism, do we find a crystallization of orthodox opposition to the results of textual and what eventually became historical criticism." PRRD, Vol 2, p 127​
Contrary to Tim's insistence, the historical Protestant position as we have inherited it, has been opposition to the results of textual and historical criticism. A crystallization of that opposition is stated in positive terms in the Westminster Confession of Faith and can only be understood connected to the refined development of Protestantism.

In 1684 Humphrey Hody, Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford University, proved that the Letter of Aristreas, from which the legend of the Septuagint is derived, is fraudulent:

"The Letter's [of Aristreas] reputation was finally destroyed, thoroughly and effectively, by Humphrey Hody.....[he] is clear from the title page onward: the very first word of his title is "Contra," and the title goes on to say "in which it is demonstrated that [the Letter] was forged by some Jew in order to give authority to the Greek version." Wasserstein, Legend of the Septuagint, p. 254, Dec 13, 2005​
These things have all been hashed out in numerous other threads and are long settled issues in Protestant history, no one has ever overturned Humphrey's work - the arguments have only resurfaced being "repackaged" as "scientific" text critical issues. 

Simply, I don't believe in the legend of the Septuagint, while I do recognize and believe a Greek Old Testament was translated, I don't know where it came from, when, or who did it - nor do I have any source of information concerning its textual transmission and necessary variants. By dogmatically asserting that Christ and the Apostles quoted from this document, then the fundamental principle of the issue of the textual variants and the Protestant opposition to it are swept under the rug. The reason is self evident, by assuming that Christ and the Apostle's quoted from the Septuagint they then validate via "Scripture" their presuppositional approach to the text. Hence, this translation is not merely authoritative "quoad res" but "quoad verba" - undermining the Protestant position on Providential Preservation. This is "argument of silence" because it is assumed the Greek Old Testament is devoid of any textual variants and is the foundational buttress of the critical presupposition that the New Testament was altered by Christians in favor of orthodoxy.

The Protestant position was that someone did engage in post-Apostolic alteration of the Greek Old Testament possibily in order to provide doctrinal continuity with the New Testament, but not the other way around. After all, the Greek Old Testament is merely a translation and is subjective to the Hebrew, the language of Providential Preservation of the Old Testament.

Since modern Reformed Christians that hold to modern critical views don't carry them out doctrinally, they defend themselves by applying the Protestant defense against the historical Protestant position, apparently not fully realizing that ultimately the doctrines cannot maintain their prior position.

The main issue was and is today, that the authority of Scripture stands prior to that of tradition and church; this authority rests on the work of God whose Word and Spirit both ground the authority of the text and presently witness through the text rendering it autopistos. Modern Protestants accept the enlightenment premise of segretation of theology from text critical issues (reason), hence they can affirm - theologically - that the critical text is autopistos. However, principally reason is set free from Scripture as the cognitive foundation of theology. The result is the inversion of the epistemological pattern of Reformed orthodoxy.

It should be self-evident that the doctrine of Scripture, based upon the full meaning of Providential Preservation which includes the textual issues, cannot be separated from exposition and interpretation of Scripture. 

Ultimately, the intent of the Westminster Confession of Faith's doctrine of Scripture is to maintain the high orthodox view of Authority of Scripture as being prior to the doctrine of God. It is, moreover, the negation of this premise championed today by the critical schools that carries forth the segregation of theology from knowledge and asserts to place the doctrine of God within the bounds of philosophy. As a result Sola Scriptura no longer holds its prior position and has become Solo Scriptura - the continual decline of Protestant orthodoxy is assured. Scripture becomes increasingly relativized.

The only hope that I can see for the return of Protestant orthodoxy is for Protestants to return to the historic principle of Scripture being prior to the doctrine of God, this necessitates abandoning the philosophy of the critical schools. If the historic Protestant principles of authority and certainty of Scripture as the foundation of knowledge are to be maintained, reason must be reduced to the instrument of argumentation, not the foundation of knowledge.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## TsonMariytho

Hello Thomas,

Thank you for your detailed and courteous thoughts on the matter.

Let me ask you this: do you regard the embracing of the CT as dangerous to our orthodoxy because:

1. It involves (in your opinion) denying the principle of "pure preservation", and thus is a matter of principle, even if not of pragmatism.

2. The doctrine that can be gleaned from the CT is corrupted doctrine, not "pure" due to the corruptions of the text.

3. Both #1 and #2.

If you choose either #2 or #3, then could you given an example of a sound doctrine that has been corrupted in the CT -- i.e. it cannot be proved from the CT, though it is taught in the TR which was allegedly uniquely kept pure.


----------



## MW

TsonMariytho said:


> If you choose either #2 or #3, then could you given an example of a sound doctrine that has been corrupted in the CT -- i.e. it cannot be proved from the CT, though it is taught in the TR which was allegedly uniquely kept pure.



Given the season of the year, let's consider Luke 2:14. Should we really suppose that the peace of the gospel only comes to men of good-will?


----------



## fredtgreco

armourbearer said:


> TsonMariytho said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you choose either #2 or #3, then could you given an example of a sound doctrine that has been corrupted in the CT -- i.e. it cannot be proved from the CT, though it is taught in the TR which was allegedly uniquely kept pure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the season of the year, let's consider Luke 2:14. Should we really suppose that the peace of the gospel only comes to men of good-will?
Click to expand...



Might we not rather say, along with every major CT-based translation, that the good will is God's, not men's? 

ESV Luke 2:14 "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!"

NAU Luke 2:14 "Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased."

Not the easiest translation, but I would presume that we would not think that the peace of the gospel comes to all men either, now would we?


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> Might we not rather say, along with every major CT-based translation, that the good will is God's, not men's?
> 
> ESV Luke 2:14 "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!"
> 
> NAU Luke 2:14 "Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased."
> 
> Not the easiest translation, but I would presume that we would not think that the peace of the gospel comes to all men either, now would we?



As someone once commented, if you can get that translation out of those words then a man can make the Greek say anything.

The Vulgate, which represents this textual tradition, has good-will in the genitive. There is no escaping this basic meaning.

The sense of the original (preserved) reading is well noted by Calvin: "This passage is not correctly understood as referring to the acceptance of grace. The angels rather speak of it as the source of peace, and thus inform us that peace is a free gift, and flows from the pure mercy of God."


----------



## TsonMariytho

armourbearer said:


> As someone once commented, if you can get that translation out of those words then a man can make the Greek say anything.
> 
> The Vulgate, which represents this textual tradition, has good-will in the genitive. There is no escaping this basic meaning.
> 
> The sense of the original (preserved) reading is well noted by Calvin: "This passage is not correctly understood as referring to the acceptance of grace. The angels rather speak of it as the source of peace, and thus inform us that peace is a free gift, and flows from the pure mercy of God."



After you posted that, I remembered and had to go look up a nice little "Exegetical Insight" by Verlyn Verbrugge in Mounce's intro Greek book that spoke to this very issue. It's on page 43 of the Basics of Biblical Greek. In Dr. Verbrugge's opinion, the text arguably moves in the direction of orthodoxy, by restricting the "peace" to those on whom [God's] favor rests, instead of goodwill to [all] men. In other words, the opposite of your opinion vis-a-vis the TR reading and monergistic orthodoxy.

So, let's suppose just for the sake of argument that the translators of the NIV, ESV, NASB, etc. are competent in the Greek and know what they are doing.

Do you have another text?


----------



## MW

TsonMariytho said:


> After you posted that, I remembered and had to go look up a nice little "Exegetical Insight" by Verlyn Verbrugge in Mounce's intro Greek book that spoke to this very issue. It's on page 43 of the Basics of Biblical Greek. In Dr. Verbrugge's opinion, the text arguably moves in the direction of orthodoxy, by restricting the "peace" to those on whom [God's] favor rests, instead of goodwill to [all] men. In other words, the opposite of your opinion vis-a-vis the TR reading and monergistic orthodoxy.



One must reconstruct Greek grammar to make it fit that translation. As Godet comments, "this use of the genitive is singularly rude, and almost barbarous; the men of goodwill, meaning those on whom goodwill rests..., is a mode of expression without any example."


----------



## TsonMariytho

[friendly sarcasm]
Fortunately, the authors of the New Testament never use any Greek that is regarded in the wider world of Classical Greek as "rude" or "ill-formed".
[/friendly sarcasm]

I recall a passage of C. S. Lewis where he remarked that he hadn't really spent a lot of effort on trying to read the Bible in Greek. Don't recall where it was, but the tenor of his remarks was that the NT authors' use of the language is very different from the classical form he was accustomed to.

Beyond that, the individual authors of the NT vary from one another in their style and facility with the language -- just as every author differs somewhat.

This specific reading in the CT wasn't chosen due to its elegance of expression, it was chosen because that's how the selected manuscripts read. That all the modern translations we've cited follow a theologically acceptable reading refutes the idea that this reading is corrupting us somehow.

If you are still in doubt, here's the leading edge of liberal scholarship:

14‘Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace among those whom he favours!’* (NRSV)​
(Note that the NRSV footnote above references the TR reading, not the unorthodox alternate translation you suggested.)

Next example, please? :^)


----------



## MW

If that is the leading edge of liberal scholarship it well explains why I am no liberal; it is daft.

I think Luke 2:14 is a good example of the nonsense of choosing the most difficult reading as an internal criterion. Sometimes it can lead to absurd readings, which no one can make sense of. Excepting of course the Douay-Rheims, which translates literally.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Rob,

As I've said before, you are a man of worth to the Kingdom, whom the King has given good gifts, yet as dead flies in the ointment, so the sin against charity spoils the sweet savor of your wisdom and honor (Eccl 10:1).

To say a man is deceived or blinded to the truth is one thing – we all suffer this ourselves to some extent somewhere in our lives – but it is entirely another to say a man is dishonest, that is, deliberately falsifies the truth for his own advantage and to knowingly deceive others. It is beyond your knowledge to assert this of Dr. White, to his motives and the inner workings of his mind. It _has_ to be an assumption on your part, and therein is your fault – and the commission of slander.

To call a man a lackey, an unthinking tool of another, and a sycophant, is merely to insult a pastor before the world, as the allegation doesn't fit the facts – it is but a cruel slur.

If you seek to justify yourself in these calumnies you but further dishonor yourself in the eyes of those who know the Royal Law.

You will remember when someone from aomin (left unnamed) said I was dishonest (to deliberately hoodwink my hearers) by using the 1st edition of Metzger's _Textual Commentary on the Greek N.T._ instead of the 2nd, as there were changes in the latter. And I said the same thing to him I've said to you, "Unjustly you make this accusation – having no clue as to my motives – for it was a thing of ignorance and not dishonesty." I also reproved him for making this unfounded charge against an elder, which, although we are not in the same local church, still violates the respect to be given officers in the Kingdom. When I was an enlisted man in the Marines, I would have gotten in as much serious trouble disrespecting an Air Force officer as I would have a Marine. How much more should this apply to the government and officers of Christ!

Open rebuke is better than secret love (Pr 27:5). And an angry countenance drives away a backbiting tongue (Pr 25:23). Anger is not hostility. I have no hostility to you, nor residual anger.

Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head... (Psalm 141:5)​
Your brother in Christ

--------

TimV,

You're getting good at the details of this debate. Let me zoom out a little, enlarge the perspective, and ask you a (perhaps) difficult question (as construction is generally harder than demolition):

Did God leave us a Bible – a settled Scripture – which we have in hand? Is it reliable in all its parts? Can we say it is the sure Word of God to us, with certainty?

What Bible do you offer, when asked thusly?

Thanks,

Steve

-----Added 12/17/2008 at 04:03:00 EST-----

More on Dabney, to add to the quote Tim V pulled from his _Discussions: Evangelical and Theological_, Vol. 1, 1891, p. 350. This is from the next page (Rev. Winzer already quoted the first sentence, but I wish to add more to that quote).

As more numerous collations of ancient documents are made the number of various readings is, of course, greatly increased; but yet the effect of these comparisons is, on the whole, to confirm the substantial correctness of the received text more and more. This is because these various readings, which are now counted by the hundred thousand, are nearly all exceedingly minute and trivial; and chiefly because, while they diverge, on the one side and on the other, from the received text, the divergence is always within these minute bounds; which proves that text to be always within a very slight distance, if at all removed, from the infallible autographs. p. 351​
Dabney goes on to examine the significant variants, omissions mostly, that the received text (the TR mss) does _not_ countenance, and finds these variants greatly wanting. He also examines the various radical text critics of his day and earlier, evaluates them (wanting as well) and also the purported "oldest and best" manuscripts. In the post-Reformation scholastic tradition he was, like Owen, "working WITHIN the TR tradition, not seeking by radical criticism to undermine it" (M. Winzer). So his caveat noted by TimV in post #164 is not at odds with the assertion of Letis (post #163) that Dabney held to the original view ("genuine heirs of Turretin") of the WCF 1:8.


----------



## TimV

> First, there is no proof that a Greek text is quoted; it may have been a Greek Targum tradition.


But if it is a Greek Targum tradition then you've just detonated a 500 pound bomb in the hold of your ship because then that Greek targum tradition contains words different than what is recorded in the Hebrew, and Christ used them. Therefore God's Word, while kept pure in all ages, wasn't totally and exhaustively contained in one volume. I'd even be willing to accept that at times God's Word could have been kept pure through verbal tradition, e.g. from Adam to Moses.



> Secondly, you assume the words of Christ are not found in the Hebrew of Isaiah. There is no reason why the original Hebrew might not be understood as including the nuance which is included in the Greek rendering of the Gospel


No reason except that the words are not there.

How about Acts 15:17


> that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things


 
And Amos 9:12 which is quoted, first in the Hebrew


> that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name," declares the LORD who does this.


 
and then the Septuagint


> 12 that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things.


 
Which is closer?

-----Added 12/17/2008 at 06:21:03 EST-----



> TimV,
> 
> You're getting good at the details of this debate. Let me zoom out a little, enlarge the perspective, and ask you a (perhaps) difficult question (as construction is generally harder than demolition):
> 
> Did God leave us a Bible – a settled Scripture – which we have in hand? Is it reliable in all its parts? Can we say it is the sure Word of God to us, with certainty?
> 
> What Bible do you offer, when asked thusly?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Steve


One of the neocons coined a phrase, "The end of history" to describe his certainty that liberal democracy had triumphed over all other political thinking. I first heard it after Mandela was released from Robben Island. Well, I'm not convinced.

No, Steve, I am not willing to say to you that any version of the Bible in existence is 


> – a settled Scripture – which we have in hand


although I do believe that God has kept His Word pure in all ages. I am quite certain that one of His tasks that He has set for His church is to search it out. And in the mean time, I think it's truly miraculous that the versions we have today are so close that there really aren't the sort of differences between texts that can legitimately be said to keep anyone from knowing God's will for our lives.

PS, are there people still following that object to the King James translators using the Septuagint to translate 14 of it's original books? And at the least, are does anyone think that any of the translators of the KJV would have used snear quote language when speaking of the "so called" Septuagint?


----------



## Grymir

Actually, the Hebrew. Because the Septuagint has this little phrase "may earnestly seek me" in it that make all the difference in meaning.


----------



## fredtgreco

Grymir said:


> Actually, the Hebrew. Because the Septuagint has this little phrase "may earnestly seek me" in it that make all the difference in meaning.



Except that is not what the KJV does:

Amos 9:12 (KJV)
That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.

Amos 9:12 (English translation of LXX):
that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things.

Now Acts 15:17 (KJV):
That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.


So which verb is right? The LXX (seek - ζητέω) or the Hebrew (possess - יָרַש).


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> But if it is a Greek Targum tradition then you've just detonated a 500 pound bomb in the hold of your ship because then that Greek targum tradition contains words different than what is recorded in the Hebrew, and Christ used them.



The only ship it sinks is your chartered ferry that Christ "quoted" from a "Greek text." It poses no problem to the authenticity of the Hebrew text for the simple reason that the "quotation" does not claim to be giving the ipsissima verba, but may have been the accepted ipsissima vox of the "quoted" authority.



TimV said:


> How about Acts 15:17



It should be borne in mind that James refers to prophets in the plural, v. 15. Hence he provides "allusion" to various sources, not a "citation" of one prophet, which would be fitting in an ad hoc speech of the nature recorded in Acts 15. This accounts for the deviation from both the MT and Greek texts.


----------



## TimV

> The only ship it sinks is your chartered ferry that Christ "quoted" from a "Greek text." It poses no problem to the authenticity of the Hebrew text for the simple reason that the "quotation" does not claim to be giving the ipsissima verba, but may have been the accepted ipsissima vox of the "quoted" authority.


The ferry chartered by 99% of people who have studied the subject points out that


> And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah *prophesy* of you hypocrites, as it is *written*, "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;


prophesy and written cover both _ipsissima verba_ and _ipsissima vox_.

And your objection to the KJV translators using the Septuagint for 14 of their Bible's books? Do we need to guess whether or not they thought the Septuagint was a titanic hoax?


----------



## Grymir

fredtgreco said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Hebrew. Because the Septuagint has this little phrase "may earnestly seek me" in it that make all the difference in meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that is not what the KJV does:
> 
> Amos 9:12 (KJV)
> That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.
> 
> Amos 9:12 (English translation of LXX):
> that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things.
> 
> Now Acts 15:17 (KJV):
> That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
> 
> 
> So which verb is right? The LXX (seek - ζητέω) or the Hebrew (possess - יָרַש).
Click to expand...


Hi Fred, I of course opened my trusty KJV (Kind of like when Elric of Melnibone drew forth Strormbringer ).

Still the OT in the KJV (Hebrew). Notice in the Septuagint version, the seeking is used with the Gentiles. As in them seeking. In the Acts verse, the seeking is limited to the first group, the residue. The Gentiles are called. Puting on my Calvinist cap, The phrase "may earnestly seek me" leapt out at me. In the LXX, its implied that all will seek the Lord, which isn't so. Only the regenerate will seek the Lord. This is a difference in theology between the KJV and the LXX. That's why I said the KJV (Hebrew). If the LXX was quoted, the bad theology would have shown through the Acts verse. Since the theology is consistant with the KJV (Hebrew), it looks like it was more likely used.


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> prophesy and written cover both _ipsissima verba_ and _ipsissima vox_.



That may very well be the case, but "verbal" variation does not establish your case of "textual" variation. It seems the evidence is not at hand for you to be able to provide even a single example where the NT "quotes" from a "Greek text."



TimV said:


> And your objection to the KJV translators using the Septuagint for 14 of their Bible's books? Do we need to guess whether or not they thought the Septuagint was a titanic hoax?



I have no idea what you are referring to.


----------



## fredtgreco

Grymir said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Hebrew. Because the Septuagint has this little phrase "may earnestly seek me" in it that make all the difference in meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that is not what the KJV does:
> 
> Amos 9:12 (KJV)
> That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.
> 
> Amos 9:12 (English translation of LXX):
> that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things.
> 
> Now Acts 15:17 (KJV):
> That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
> 
> 
> So which verb is right? The LXX (seek - ζητέω) or the Hebrew (possess - יָרַש).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Fred, I of course opened my trusty KJV (Kind of like when Elric of Melnibone drew forth Strormbringer ).
> 
> Still the OT in the KJV (Hebrew). Notice in the Septuagint version, the seeking is used with the Gentiles. As in them seeking. In the Acts verse, the seeking is limited to the first group, the residue. The Gentiles are called. Puting on my Calvinist cap, The phrase "may earnestly seek me" leapt out at me. In the LXX, its implied that all will seek the Lord, which isn't so. Only the regenerate will seek the Lord. This is a difference in theology between the KJV and the LXX. That's why I said the KJV (Hebrew). If the LXX was quoted, the bad theology would have shown through the Acts verse. Since the theology is consistant with the KJV (Hebrew), it looks like it was more likely used.
Click to expand...


I'm not following you. What you say makes no sense, because the KJV Acts 15 passage does not quote the Hebrew (as reflected in the KJV OT. It quotes the Greek.


----------



## TsonMariytho

armourbearer said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your objection to the KJV translators using the Septuagint for 14 of their Bible's books? Do we need to guess whether or not they thought the Septuagint was a titanic hoax?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you are referring to.
Click to expand...


I believe that would be the Apocrypha.

On a semi-related note, I have a digital transcription of the KJV translators' notes for Zechariah 12:13 that references the LXX explicitly for a variant (Shimei / Simeon). However, I checked facsimiles of both the KJV 1611 and 1613, and that note is not present. I wonder what the story on that footnote is...


----------



## MW

TsonMariytho said:


> I believe that would be the Apocrypha.



In that case, irrelevant.


----------



## Grymir

Hi Fred,

But it "quotes" the theology. The LXX's theology is radically different that the KJV (Hebrew). If the LXX was used, the bad theology used in the LXX would of shown up in the Acts passage. Since the theology behind the KJV (Hebrew) is used, that is probably the passage more likely to be used.

No matter what words are used in a quote, the theology (philosophy) comes through loud and clear. It's one thing to figure out which words are used, but the theology/philosophy behind the 'gist' of the verse is different. That's why I said KJV (Hebrew). As a theological/philosophical person (I am a polemicist), these things leap out at me, that a modern translator might not pick up on. Notice how most people would pick the LXX version based on just the words alone. And it's a circumstantial example. As armourbearer said - "It should be borne in mind that James refers to prophets in the plural, v. 15. Hence he provides "allusion" to various sources, not a "citation" of one prophet, which would be fitting in an ad hoc speech of the nature recorded in Acts 15. This accounts for the deviation from both the MT and Greek texts."

This is one problem I have with the CT. The philosophy of their translation is at odds with the TR.


----------



## TsonMariytho

armourbearer said:


> In that case, irrelevant.



Hmmmm. Not so fast. Tim was asking whether the KJV's translators believed the LXX to be a "titanic hoax". Apparently, they spent a lot of time and effort studying it, and large portions of the LXX ended up between the covers of the KJV.

Request: Could somebody who actually holds the view Tim is so colorfully describing here please summarize for me (and anybody else who might be similarly hazy) what your issue with the LXX is?

In other words, are there people here who hold that the LXX translations (for there were many) were all created after the New Testament, and based on the New Testament? Is that the "hoax" theory Tim refers to?

Do some of you folks believe it would be injurious to your TR priority position if it was demonstrated that the inspired New Testament sometimes references readings from a translation like the LXX that differ from our Masoretic Text? (That seems pretty clear from the discussion, but it would be nice for somebody on the TR side to assert clearly that he holds that view.)

I hope we can focus the discussion on more of a narrow line of conversation than just having some of us saying, "the KJV is right" and others of us saying, "the ???[?] is right". (I exaggerate, but you know what I mean.)


----------



## fredtgreco

Grymir said:


> Hi Fred,
> 
> But it "quotes" the theology. The LXX's theology is radically different that the KJV (Hebrew). If the LXX was used, the bad theology used in the LXX would of shown up in the Acts passage. Since the theology behind the KJV (Hebrew) is used, that is probably the passage more likely to be used.
> 
> No matter what words are used in a quote, the theology (philosophy) comes through loud and clear. It's one thing to figure out which words are used, but the theology/philosophy behind the 'gist' of the verse is different. That's why I said KJV (Hebrew). As a theological/philosophical person (I am a polemicist), these things leap out at me, that a modern translator might not pick up on. Notice how most people would pick the LXX version based on just the words alone. And it's a circumstantial example. As armourbearer said - "It should be borne in mind that James refers to prophets in the plural, v. 15. Hence he provides "allusion" to various sources, not a "citation" of one prophet, which would be fitting in an ad hoc speech of the nature recorded in Acts 15. This accounts for the deviation from both the MT and Greek texts."
> 
> This is one problem I have with the CT. The philosophy of their translation is at odds with the TR.



I'm sorry, but again, you make no sense. You are basically saying: "Well, the words mean nothing to me. It is the 'theology' of the passage. And since I like the 'theology' of the Hebrew text, and I assume that the KJV has the same 'theology' I'll basically ignore the words and assume that they are closer to what is not written."

That is Bible chaos, and no one, without a blinding KJV bias, would say that. (And I am a pro-MT/TR text guy, not a CT guy.)


----------



## MW

TsonMariytho said:


> Request: Could somebody who actually holds the view Tim is so colorfully describing here please summarize for me (and anybody else who might be similarly hazy) what your issue with the LXX is?



No one can ascertain if it was translated by 70/72, or even who the translators were. No one can determine how much of it was translated before the Christian era or what function oral tradition played in the process. No one can decide what was the state of the original Hebrew text that was translated. No one can discern what the nature of the translation was -- was it intended to be literal, and how influenced was it by Hellenistic thought? No one can establish to what degree it is a pure text or to what extent it has been interpolated/emended by Christian editors.


----------



## Grymir

Fred, I think you are mis-understanding what I'm saying. Just because you don't understand what I'm saying, doesn't make my point less. I never said the words mean nothing. You're making a big assumption in what I'm saying. I don't have a blind KJV bias either. 

I was just answering TimV's question about which one matched up better on that particular verse. 

And I noticed the LXX quote was Arminian in it's theology, and the KJV quote was Calvinist. If the LXX was the verse 'quoted', why didn't it's arminian theology come through? I also disagree with TimV's premise that it was 'quoted' verbatim also

The words people use, even in everyday speech, show a philosophical bias. Even a friendly conversation between two people can speak volumes. Most people don't pick up on these ideas.


----------



## TimV

> I also disagree with TimV's premise that it was 'quoted' verbatim also


As a point of detail, I didn't say the Septuagint was quoted verbatim. I said the Hebrew wasn't quoted verbatim, and the Septuagint contains words quoted by NT authors that the Hebrew doesn't.


----------



## Grymir

Oh, O.k. The Septuagint does have those words.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*Book of Life*

Hi Tim:

Finally! I received a copy of Hoskier. Here is what he reports concerning the phrase, "Book of Life" in Revelation 22:19. The below are quotes from his book, The Text of the Apocalypse:

"The only information we have from von Soden as to the codices which he attempted to use in his apparatus is conveyed on the separate card issued with the last volume of Text, and embracing only about seventy MSS. out of the two hundred (plus) catalogued," Vol. 1, pg. xi.

Thus, I gather that there are between 200 and 250 Codices that contain all or part of the Book of Revelation. If there were more than 250 then I think he would bave been more precise.

He identifies the reading "Book of Life" as residing in Group 56-108.

_"...en to Biblion gegrammenas_ (-touto) 56-108." Vol. 2. pg. 642. This group is comprised of about 52 codices.

Here are several observations he has made concerning Group 56-108. These are found in Vol. 1, starting at page 170 - I will not supply the page numbers:

"Thus we have a picture of a MS. possibly derived from another quite as early and probably earlier than Aleph, and if this be the case, then, instead of representing parts of the P and B revision, it furnishes the _basis for both_, and not alone for B ... Versions ought to help us with the problem connected with this MS., but I hardly see it yet. It agrees often with _Latin, Coptic, Arminian, and Syriac_, but generally with two or three of them together ... As before said, we find it difficult to connect our scribe - or his predecessor rather - with any definite Version or Country. The more exceptional readings nearly all are supported by seveal Versions, thus taking us back to early times and mixed readings, before the text was more or less settled by Church usage ... The MS. runs very smoothly. You look for removal of "plain and clear errors," and you find them removed. You look for the incorporation of "monstra" and curious readings and you do not find them. You are impressed by this ancient support of many readings of textus receptus ... And you are just thinking what a good witness you have (whether Alexandrine or not) when suddenly from time to time, without any warning, and as suavely as possible, you are introduced to novelties of the most pronounced kind!. We are in presense, remember, of a MS. edited between 400 and 750 A.D. It matters not whether it was rewritten in 1250. It has been faithfully transmitted, and the alterations are apparent."

Under, "New Readings" he asserts 22:18 thus:

"tas plegas tas en to Biblio gegrammenas (-touto) with 108**, which, however, omits tas in error."

Thus, to answer your question: We have about 250 codices of the Book of Revelation. Of these codices 52 of them attest to the "Book of Life" reading in Revelation 22:18.

If all of these codices contain Revelation 22:18, then about 20% of them read "Book of Life" rather than "Tree of Life."

Hope this helps,

Rob


----------



## TsonMariytho

CalvinandHodges said:


> "tas plegas tas en to Biblio gegrammenas (-touto) with 108**, which, however, omits tas in error."
> 
> Thus, to answer your question: We have about 250 codices of the Book of Revelation. Of these codices 52 of them attest to the "Book of Life" reading in Revelation 22:18.
> 
> If all of these codices contain Revelation 22:18, then about 20% of them read "Book of Life" rather than "Tree of Life."
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Rob



Rob, I am confused, please help me out here...

The controversial phrase as rendered by the TR is "απο βιβλου της ζωης" from Rev. 22:*19*, right?

Why do you reference 22:*18* above?

It seems that 22:18 also contains the word "book" / βιβλιω, but that reading is not controversial.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

> =TsonMariytho;511921]
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> "tas plegas tas en to Biblio gegrammenas (-touto) with 108**, which, however, omits tas in error."
> 
> Thus, to answer your question: We have about 250 codices of the Book of Revelation. Of these codices 52 of them attest to the "Book of Life" reading in Revelation 22:18.
> 
> If all of these codices contain Revelation 22:18, then about 20% of them read "Book of Life" rather than "Tree of Life."
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rob, I am confused, please help me out here...
> 
> The controversial phrase as rendered by the TR is "απο βιβλου της ζωης" from Rev. 22:*19*, right?
> 
> Why do you reference 22:*18* above?
> 
> It seems that 22:18 also contains the word "book" / βιβλιω, but that reading is not controversial.
Click to expand...


Whoops! You are right. I was looking at verse 18 and thinking it was 19 (I should have seen that Zoe (life) was not present!) My bad.

Vs 19 Biblion is remarked as being in Codices 92, 75, 57, 141, 119mg, Making it in 4 codices and 1 in the margin.

The reading Tree is found in Aleph, A, B. E, minniscule 208 and in a group of translations as well as a few Early Church Fathers. Though I have to admit I find the citations here a bit confusion. Here is what Hoskier wrote concerning the Tree references:

"Alpha ABE minn. omn. et 208 [exc. 57 141m Bibliou 119mg***] Compl. syr arm aeth sah gig Apr. Tyc. Beat. am dem lips6 [non boh arab cum vg et fu lips4,5 Prim. Ambr. Haymo Act Saturn. )ligno/libro ps-Aug.-Spec._]. Non liq. Cass. Beda."

It appears to me that the majority of the MSS attest to the "Tree" interpretation - how much of a majority I am not sure.

Thanks for pointing it out.


----------



## TimV

So until we can find out for certain, it looks like 4 out of 200 plus?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

TimV said:


> So until we can find out for certain, it looks like 4 out of 200 plus?



Yes. I am willing to work with that. The one thing I do know is that "Book of Life" is a minority reading, and that it is a very small minority.

In Jesus,

Rob


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hold on a minute, I think 200 to 4 is a mistake. This was in error:



> Thus, to answer your question: We have about 250 codices of the Book of Revelation. Of these codices 52 of them attest to the "Book of Life" reading in Revelation 22:18.



"Book of life" is not in Rev 22:18. And Rob corrected it.

I have Hoskier's two volumes beside me. His citations, as Rob noted, are somewhat confusing to me also, but I do not see verse 19 in all those 250 codices; perhaps a few handfuls to 4 or 5. I am willing to be corrected, but that's what it appears to me.

The CT goes with a far greater minority as regards Matthew 1:7, 10 when it reads Asaph and Amos as Christ's forebears instead of the correct Asa and Amon. The same with Mark 16:9-20. The issue is not necessarily numerical; other factors may bear on it.


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> No, Steve, I am not willing to say to you that any version of the Bible in existence is
> 
> 
> 
> – a settled Scripture – which we have in hand
> 
> 
> 
> although I do believe that God has kept His Word pure in all ages. I am quite certain that one of His tasks that He has set for His church is to search it out. And in the mean time, I think it's truly miraculous that the versions we have today are so close that there really aren't the sort of differences between texts that can legitimately be said to keep anyone from knowing God's will for our lives.
Click to expand...


If this is true, then in what way can it be said that God has kept His Word *pure* in all ages? It seems to me that what you believe could be expressed better: "God has kept His Word *hidden* in all ages."


----------



## TimV

> If this is true, then in what way can it be said that God has kept His Word *pure* in all ages? It seems to me that what you believe could be expressed better: "God has kept His Word *hidden* in all ages."



There comes a point where constant repeating doesn't help. I've asked you to ask yourself where God's Word was in 1450. I've asked for a straight answer, but I don't get one from you. I'm hoping you will say "On more than one manuscript". I'm hoping you are aware that the TR was a compilation. I'm hoping you don't think Erasmus had only one manuscript in front of him. I'm hoping that you think that when Erasmus said 


> You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospels. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices


that he took those few manuscripts that he had access to and combined them to get something different than any of them.

To understand where you're coming from, I have asked for a time line. Where was God's Word. Give me the physical location of where God's Word was every hundred years from the death of Moses to today. But all I get is conspiracy theories that rely heavily on translator motives.

Ken, the fact that God kept His Word pure in all ages doesn't mean that every single Christian who ever lived has had access to it, at least in it's exact, word for word form. The fact that only a teeny, tiny minority of Christians in the Reformed, or any other tradition thinks otherwise should give you pause.

I can see why it would be more comfortable to believe that the AV is God's exact, perfectly preserved Word in English. But there is another option than the simplistic either or option you give. When you accuse 99% of Reformed Elders (yes, I know you're a Baptist, and don't have the WCF in your tradition, so 1.8 didn't come up for you) of betraying their vows, and throwing things like


> God has kept His Word *hidden* in all ages


 in their face, you may want to remember how severe your accusation is. 



> The CT goes with a far greater minority as regards Matthew 1:7, 10 when it reads Asaph and Amos as Christ's forebears instead of the correct Asa and Amon. The same with Mark 16:9-20. The issue is not necessarily numerical; other factors may bear on it.


Why bring the CT into it? I don't think anyone here worships the CT. I'm quite certain that nobody here thinks the CT is God's exact, perfectly preserved Word. The Majority Text agrees with the overwhelming number of Greek manuscripts as well as the CT on this word.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I could not find how many of the 230 manuscripts Hoskier collated contained Rev 22:19, though it is clear that some of these manuscripts were but fragments, and only had a portion of the whole. I will continue to search for the number that had that passage, and what the breakdown of the readings – tree or book – amounted to. But I did find some other interesting material in my searching.

There are two basic text groupings comprising the varying readings in Revelation – _within the Majority Text camp!_ – as well as some CT readings. The MT groups are the 046 and the Andreas.

Hodges and Farstad in their, _The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text_, p. xxxvi, do admit, “There is no reason why the parental exemplar of the Andreas texttype could not go back well into the second century.” And Hodges says, “…the Textus Receptus much more closely approximates Andreas than 046 – in fact, hardly resembles the latter group at all” (from “The Ecclesiatical Text of Revelation,” _Bibliotheca Sacra_, April 1961, p. 121). [In their edition of the MT, they favored the 046 group, so this is a significant admission.]

From Hoskier’s _Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse_,

We trace the origin of the B (046) group not further back than 8th or possibly 7th century. Now many many cursives are identified with this family group, whereas in the main our Textus Receptus is not, and has at any rate avoided the bulk of this revision (_Apocalypse_ p. xxxvii)

This may be the proper place to emphasize why the Textus Receptus of the Apocalypse is intrinsically good. Apoc. 1, on which it is founded, is an old text. See how it comes out in Hippolytus…

It is actually possible to reconstruct a first-class text from Hipp.—47—and Textus Receptus, and a far better one than that of _any_ of our five uncials. Why? Well, apart from a few idiosyncrasies, which the whole body of subsequent evidence rejects, Hippolytus represents as old a text as we can get. Then 47, also apart from a few distinguishing idiosyncrasies easily identified and rejected owing to lack of other support, is throughout a straightforward, careful witness. And lastly, the Textus Receptus, apart from any instinctive and intrinsic excellence, happens to prove back back to the very order of words used by Hippolytus’ codex; in places where _t.r._ disagrees we let 47+Hipp. guide us and they nearly always lead us in the right path, namely with the consensus of general evidence. (Ibid., p. xlvii)​
Hoskier’s basic conclusion was toward the 200 plus MSS he collated for Revelation:

I may state that if Erasmus had striven to found a text on the largest _number_ of existing MSS in the world _of one type_, he could not have succeeded better, since his family-MSS occupy the front rank in point of actual _numbers_, the family numbering over 20 MSS besides its allies. (_The John Rylands Bulletin_ 19-1922/23, p 118.)​
-----Added 12/20/2008 at 09:43:56 EST-----

Why bring the CT into it, you ask, Tim? Because these are the two basic textforms we have, the Majority Text (the TR being a form of that) and the Critical / Eclectic Text. Within these parameters are the choices we have for the texttype of preference.

I think it is inappropriate and inflammatory to accuse Ken of accusing "99% of Reformed Elders (yes, I know you're a Baptist, and don't have the WCF in your tradition, so 1.8 didn't come up for you) of betraying their vows", when he is but asking how they resolve an apparent discrepancy -- and not "accusing". I think a peaceful discussion can do without that kind of grandstanding hyperbole. This is not a barroom brawl, but a forum of pastors, elders, and hopefully godly believers seeking edification on a difficult topic.

Your disdain for the King James advocates -- your "contempt" -- is an unwelcome element in godly discourse. While we may be a minority (even as the Reformed are in the larger Christian community), if we conduct ourselves in a polite, respectful, and scholarly manner -- even while arguing our case vigorously -- it is a disgrace to subject us to such scorn and inflammatory rhetoric, as we are Christ's, "holy and beloved". Scorn we get enough from the world. I would ask the moderators / administrators to please effectively address this _continual_ breach of PB protocol.


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> If this is true, then in what way can it be said that God has kept His Word *pure* in all ages? It seems to me that what you believe could be expressed better: "God has kept His Word *hidden* in all ages."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There comes a point where constant repeating doesn't help. I've asked you to ask yourself where God's Word was in 1450. I've asked for a straight answer, but I don't get one from you.
Click to expand...


I don't know where God's Word was. I am glad for the work of the Erasmus and the Puritans etc.



TimV said:


> I'm hoping you will say "On more than one manuscript". I'm hoping you are aware that the TR was a compilation. I'm hoping you don't think Erasmus had only one manuscript in front of him. I'm hoping that you think that when Erasmus said
> 
> 
> 
> You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospels. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices
> 
> 
> 
> that he took those few manuscripts that he had access to and combined them to get something different than any of them.
Click to expand...


I think I understand you here...



TimV said:


> To understand where you're coming from, I have asked for a time line. Where was God's Word. Give me the physical location of where God's Word was every hundred years from the death of Moses to today.



I cannot answer these questions.



TimV said:


> But all I get is conspiracy theories that rely heavily on translator motives.



This comment musts be directed to someone else.



TimV said:


> Ken, the fact that God kept His Word pure in all ages doesn't mean that every single Christian who ever lived has had access to it, at least in it's exact, word for word form.



What do the words "pure in all ages mean?" What does it mean to you? What does it mean to this majority that you refer to? What did it mean to the Puritans?

You said,



TimV said:


> No, Steve, I am not willing to say to you that any version of the Bible in existence is
> 
> 
> 
> – a settled Scripture – which we have in hand
> 
> 
> 
> although I do believe that God has kept His Word pure in all ages. I am quite certain that one of His tasks that He has set for His church is to search it out. And in the mean time, I think it's truly miraculous that the versions we have today are so close that there really aren't the sort of differences between texts that can legitimately be said to keep anyone from knowing God's will for our lives.
Click to expand...


Would you object if the WCF stated: "kept pure, _although hidden_, through all ages'?

You say that it is the 'task that He has set for His church to search it out.' Does that mean that it is the task of every believer? Every elder? Every presbytery? To decide for himself/istelf what the pure Word of God is? If so, which English version best meats that criteria?



TimV said:


> The fact that only a teeny, tiny minority of Christians in the Reformed, or any other tradition thinks otherwise should give you pause.



It does. That is why I read your posts and ask you these questions.



TimV said:


> I can see why it would be more comfortable to believe that the AV is God's exact, perfectly preserved Word in English. But there is another option than the simplistic either or option you give. When you accuse 99% of Reformed Elders (yes, I know you're a Baptist, and don't have the WCF in your tradition, so 1.8 didn't come up for you) of betraying their vows, and throwing things like
> 
> 
> 
> God has kept His Word *hidden* in all ages
> 
> 
> 
> in their face, you may want to remember how severe your accusation is.
Click to expand...


You, sir, are the one who has consistently taken honest questions and turned them into accusations. The more important concern here is why do you assume that anyone asks a question that there is some kind of underlying accusation?


----------



## Poimen

Moderator voice on

Okay it is time to get back to the main question of this thread: 




> Does WCF 1.8 require use of the Received Text



The rhetoric is getting a little heated so let's calm down and return to our regular scheduled programming. You know the drill: if you want to discuss the other issues that have come up in this thread start a new one or revive an old one. 

ANY POSTS THAT DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION WILL BE DELETED.

Thank you.

Moderator voice off


----------



## TimV

> Why bring the CT into it, you ask, Tim? Because these are the two basic textforms we have, the Majority Text (the TR being a form of that) and the Critical / Eclectic Text. Within these parameters are the choices we have for the texttype of preference.


Steve, both the Critical Text and the Majority Text use the word Tree in Rev. 22:19. Could you please tell my why the Elders of my Church
a) would be wrong in accepting the CT and MT reading of Rev. 22:19
b) would be in violation of WCF 1.8 in preferring the CT and MT reading of Rev. 22:19.


----------



## Grymir

TimV, I don't think there is a problem with one word. I'd be more concerned about their textual philosophy.


----------



## Prufrock

(Off topic interjection -- 7 pages?! Didn't see that one coming when I started this thread...)


----------



## TimV

> (Off topic interjection -- 7 pages?! Didn't see that one coming when I started this thread...)



It's been going on for a couple years, actually. The poll is about evenly split between people who think officers of confessional Reformed churches that require either conforming to the WCF or are required to state any objections to the WCF are

a) in violation of their oaths for believing WCF 1.8 allows them to consider translations not based on the TR God's Word

and 

b) are not in violation of their vows by believing that translations not based on the TR can be called God's Word

So, the questions that I have for those who voted yes are:

Since both the Critical Text and the Majority Text use the word Tree in Rev. 22:19. Could you please tell my why the Elders of my Church

a) would be wrong in accepting the CT and MT reading of Rev. 22:19
b) would be in violation of WCF 1.8 in preferring the CT and MT reading of Rev. 22:19.


----------



## Grymir

7 pages? No doubt, but this has been very educational. At the first, I probably would have voted no, but now? How people view the text has really made me think, and possibly changed my mind.

-----Added 12/20/2008 at 11:44:30 EST-----

And TimV, why you keep bringing up that one word is beyond me. I don't think either camp would have a problem with one word.


----------



## TimV

> And TimV, why you keep bringing up that one word is beyond me. I don't think either camp would have a problem with one word.


What is the highest number of words different from the TR that you would accept before you believe that an officer candidate should make an exception to WFC 1.8?


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> The poll is about evenly split between people who think officers of confessional Reformed churches that require either conforming to the WCF or are required to state any objections to the WCF are
> 
> a) in violation of their oaths for believing WCF 1.8 allows them to consider translations not based on the TR God's Word
> 
> and
> 
> b) are not in violation of their vows by believing that translations not based on the TR can be called God's Word
> 
> So, the questions that I have for those who voted yes are:
> 
> Since both the Critical Text and the Majority Text use the word Tree in Rev. 22:19. Could you please tell my why the Elders of my Church
> 
> a) would be wrong in accepting the CT and MT reading of Rev. 22:19
> b) would be in violation of WCF 1.8 in preferring the CT and MT reading of Rev. 22:19.



No. The poll question was: *Does WCF 1.8 require use of the Received Text?*

It does not ask, "Does WCF 1.8 require *exclusive* use of the Received Test?"

It does not ask, "Are officers in confessionally Reformed churches in violation of their oaths for believing WCF 1.8 allows them to consider translations not based on the TR God's Word?"

You are putting words into the mouths of all those who voted 'yes' on this poll.


----------



## TimV

> No. The poll question was: Does WCF 1.8 require use of the Received Text?
> 
> It does not ask, "Does WCF 1.8 require *exclusive* use of the Received Test?"
> 
> It does not ask, "Are officers in confessionally Reformed churches in violation of their oaths for believing WCF 1.8 allows them to consider translations not based on the TR God's Word?"
> 
> You are putting words into the mouths of all those who voted 'yes' on this poll.


I accept that it is possible that I'm putting words into people's mouths, but I don't see how. How exactly are you interpreting the question? That the TR is required to be used in addition to other texts? As in every other Sunday? Or used as a base texts with variations acceptable? And if so, how many variations? And where can they come from?


----------



## fredtgreco

TimV said:


> No. The poll question was: Does WCF 1.8 require use of the Received Text?
> 
> It does not ask, "Does WCF 1.8 require *exclusive* use of the Received Test?"
> 
> It does not ask, "Are officers in confessionally Reformed churches in violation of their oaths for believing WCF 1.8 allows them to consider translations not based on the TR God's Word?"
> 
> You are putting words into the mouths of all those who voted 'yes' on this poll.
> 
> 
> 
> I accept that it is possible that I'm putting words into people's mouths, but I don't see how. How exactly are you interpreting the question? That the TR is required to be used in addition to other texts? As in every other Sunday? Or used as a base texts with variations acceptable? And if so, how many variations? And where can they come from?
Click to expand...


I'm with Tim here on this point. There is no other reasonable way to read the question.


----------



## Grymir

TimV said:


> And TimV, why you keep bringing up that one word is beyond me. I don't think either camp would have a problem with one word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the highest number of words different from the TR that you would accept before you believe that an officer candidate should make an exception to WFC 1.8?
Click to expand...


Hi TimV,

It's not the number of words, I would look into how a person thinks philosophically/theologically about this issue.

The reason I said what I did, is that you keep using that one word (tree/book), and it comes across as saying that the TR position hinges on the accuracy of it. Which it doesn't. If only that one word was wrong, the TR is more accurate than I previously thought! Us Real King Jimmy users know that there are a few errors. As in probably less than 20, Or it is less than 1/2 of one page. Which isn't alot. All but 9 or 10 verses can be found written by the church fathers, so we don't have to look for 'newly' discovered texts to correct the text we have received. I think that the 'newly' discovered texts would detract from what we have. That idea is part of the 'philosophy' of the issue.

Which kind of gets to the philosophy statements I make. How does a person view scripture, who do they consider authoritative concerning the text (Church fathers, the church through history, or 'modern' scholars).


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Moderator, you don’t think TimV’s accusation, “you accuse 99% of Reformed Elders (yes, I know you're a Baptist, and don't have the WCF in your tradition, so 1.8 didn't come up for you) of betraying their vows,” is a breach of the 9th Commandment, a bearing false witness? And that this public vilifying of a church office bearer constitutes “railing / reviling” – [size=+1]lodoroj[/size] – per Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 5:11?

This is far more serious than the veering off topic, and was the reason I asked for moderation. Evidently the old Moderator standards have been relaxed:

"I have assumed a zero tolerance platform as of late; If I see any inuendo, ad hominem, slander, below the belt assaults on any believers from here on out, the guilty party will be banned immediately." [from the thread, http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/james-white-1-john-5-7-a-12414/#post162880]​
Which is a shame. When sin is tolerated the Spirit of Christ departs.

Fred, this is more nuanced than appears if you have followed the thread. Included in the discussion was,

Warfield[‘s] championing Westcott and Hort's revised Greek text, and his efforts against the higher critical attack on the Scriptures. This bears directly on the OP's question. I would say, in brief, that those who hold to the WCF (and 1:8 in particular) while using the CT, do so in good conscience, due to Warfield's influence. (see posts #135 and 163)​
From there the nature of his influence on the understanding of the WCF 1:8 was gone into at length in those two posts. This is why we have two views of the matter today. 

The issue is *not*,

“Are officers in confessionally Reformed churches in violation of their oaths for believing WCF 1.8 allows them to consider translations not based on the TR God's Word?”​
but was Warfield right or wrong in his approach? It is assumed that ministers hold to the WCF 1:8 in good conscience regarding their oaths, whichever view they take. Those who assert otherwise – at least at this point in the discussion – are being willfully provocative and inflammatory. It is an academic, text critical matter, and not one of “violating oaths” etc.

If Moderation allows defamation of character and slander – which has occurred more than once in this thread – to continue, this is a serious breach in our integrity as an online community.

In the House of Light there is a great chamber called The Hall of Learning, where holy servants of the High King gather to exchange intelligence and to search out matters. This they do with great mutual respect and kindness, knowing that the bonds of love are the basis of their fellowship, and that learning is secondary. Whenever the bonds of love are broken in that Hall its participants immediately disperse, learning being impossible at that moment. But when these bonds of ardent love are profound and manifest, how wondrous to see divines and seers search out, and test, and prove what be the things of God, and what not, and what cannot with certainty be ascertained at that time. There is a thrilling joy which permeates that chamber, blazing with the light of Heaven...​
Or shall we become, the Jurassic Forums? If the latter, count me out!


----------



## fredtgreco

Steve,

I agree that this thread has had more than its share of "pushing it." But I honestly don't understand how one can read the OP question (and not the myriad of subsidiary questions in the thread):



> If a pastor uses a modern translation in church based on the critical text, do you think this means he should/ought/must claim to take exception to WCF 1.8 and the doctrine of preservation.



to mean other than: "if a PCA/OPC/etc. church uses the NASB, ESV, etc., and the minister does not take exception, he is in violation of WCF 1.8 and the doctrine of preservation."

I cannot view the OP as stating other than that I, as a minister in good standing of the PCA, who subscribes to the WCF (and who, for the record, prefers the MT/TR to the CT), because I allow the use of the ESV in my church, I must say that I do not believe in the _Confessional_ doctrine of preservation and WCF 1.8, and I must take exception to WCF 1.8 - i.e. say that the doctrine of preservation is wrong.

In my mind, the entire thread is pernicious.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I agree with Fred completely.


----------



## ChristianTrader

fredtgreco said:


> Steve,
> 
> I agree that this thread has had more than its share of "pushing it." But I honestly don't understand how one can read the OP question (and not the myriad of subsidiary questions in the thread):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a pastor uses a modern translation in church based on the critical text, do you think this means he should/ought/must claim to take exception to WCF 1.8 and the doctrine of preservation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to mean other than: "if a PCA/OPC/etc. church uses the NASB, ESV, etc., and the minister does not take exception, he is in violation of WCF 1.8 and the doctrine of preservation."
> 
> I cannot view the OP as stating other than that I, as a minister in good standing of the PCA, who subscribes to the WCF (and who, for the record, prefers the MT/TR to the CT), because I allow the use of the ESV in my church, I must say that I do not believe in the _Confessional_ doctrine of preservation and WCF 1.8, and I must take exception to WCF 1.8 - i.e. say that the doctrine of preservation is wrong.
> 
> In my mind, the entire thread is pernicious.
Click to expand...


Fred,
Is there a way to ask the question in a non pernicious fashion? Or is that just in the nature of the question of asking what does the confession mean at this point?

CT


----------



## Hippo

I think that the question is tangential to the real issue that many are debating, that is whether the TR is superior to the CT.

In arguing for the TR in this thread the confessions are being used as a tool for progressing an argument that the confessions did not directly address (if they addressed it at all).

It has been tacitly accepted that the text that the writers of the confession adhered to is not the same as the historical contemporary text or indeed the text that is in use today. While the differences may be minor it does show that an identical text to that at the time of the confessions completion is not a proper interpretation of the confessions text. 

To use the confessions in this argument in such a black and white fashion (i.e. right or wrong) risks at the very least risks collateral damage such as seeking to place a large proportion of the confessional community as being in breach of their obligations.


----------



## Prufrock

fredtgreco said:


> Steve,
> 
> I agree that this thread has had more than its share of "pushing it." But I honestly don't understand how one can read the OP question (and not the myriad of subsidiary questions in the thread):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a pastor uses a modern translation in church based on the critical text, do you think this means he should/ought/must claim to take exception to WCF 1.8 and the doctrine of preservation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to mean other than: "if a PCA/OPC/etc. church uses the NASB, ESV, etc., and the minister does not take exception, he is in violation of WCF 1.8 and the doctrine of preservation."
> 
> I cannot view the OP as stating other than that I, as a minister in good standing of the PCA, who subscribes to the WCF (and who, for the record, prefers the MT/TR to the CT), because I allow the use of the ESV in my church, I must say that I do not believe in the _Confessional_ doctrine of preservation and WCF 1.8, and I must take exception to WCF 1.8 - i.e. say that the doctrine of preservation is wrong.
> 
> In my mind, the entire thread is pernicious.
Click to expand...


Just for the record: the OP was a question, not a statement. It was an honest question as to whether or not 1.8 required use of the TR in the public reading of scriptures. I (the person who started this thread) still stand by my initial "I don't know answer" (though as I stated in one post it at least seems more _consistent_). But again, it was a question -- not a statement, not an accusation, not a calling out; just an historical question about the intent of the Assembly with that phrase. Sorry for any confusion.

*Edit*
Honestly, I can't think of any other way of asking the question. But it clearly was a question, not an accusation. Even if it were a statement of "accusation," however, such things occur all the time: I mean, anytime we assert that paedobaptism is correct, don't we implicitly accuse credo ministers of improperly administering the sacraments and improperly teaching their use from the Word of God? Anytime anyone disagrees, there's a couched accusation of misusing/misrepresenting the Word. But, again, as I merely asked a question (and also testified that I voted, "I don't know," the OP clearly was an honest inquiry and not an accusation of anyone.

-----Added 12/20/2008 at 05:34:57 EST-----

Also Fred (or anyone else) -- I don't want to draw you into this if you don't want to be involved, but would you care to state how you understand 1.8? Thus far, Tim has been pretty much the only one arguing for the negative of the OP question: I would love to hear others' reasons, and how you interpret 1.8 and its relationship to the public reading of translations as scripture.


----------



## TimV

> It's not the number of words, I would look into how a person thinks philosophically/theologically about this issue.
> 
> The reason I said what I did, is that you keep using that one word (tree/book), and it comes across as saying that the TR position hinges on the accuracy of it. Which it doesn't.


That's one traditional way AVers have when they run out of arguments; to talk about motive and philosophy, and they are always as vague as possible. And yes, that one word is all I need. If the word Tree, as in the MT is correct, then the TR doesn't contain God's exact Word. And that's why the hard core types dig their feet in on the issue. They know it. Just as they know (you called them weirdos in post 19 and I disagree with you which is why I use words like conspiracy theorists; many are very intelligent) that they can't budge on Christ quoting the Septuagint, Aramaic being in no possible way a dialect of Hebrew, etc...God either preserved His Word in one volume or He didn't. There's no difference of *kind* between 1 variation and one thousand.

BTW Luther's Bondage of the Will was written in reply to Erasmus' Freedom of the Will. One of his nicknames was the Prince of Humanists. And even if this very liberal Calvinist hater were alive today, by his own words would have updated the TR.


----------



## Grymir

Hi TimV,

So you're saying the CT is perfect? Contain God's _exact_ Word? 

I don't get what your getting at. 

And just so you know, I always talk about philosophy. It's in my blood. What a person's philosophy is betrays their theology. Theology is the queen of the sciences, Philosophy her handmaiden is old but true. And yes, the Ruckner types are weirdo's. Or weird would be better. I just don't have their taste.


----------



## TimV

> So you're saying the CT is perfect? Contain God's exact Word?


No, only AVers go down that road.



> I don't get what your getting at.


If you and Ken ask yourselves "Was God's Word written down in it's entirety and perfectly in 1450?" You will both say (if you think about it for awhile) that God's Word may not have been written down in one, single place, and that's why we are grateful to Erasmus since he compiled several differing texts to form one, different then them all, which we call the TR.

Are we on the same page?


----------



## fredtgreco

ChristianTrader said:


> Fred,
> Is there a way to ask the question in a non pernicious fashion? Or is that just in the nature of the question of asking what does the confession mean at this point?
> 
> CT



CT,

I think there might be. It may even be that the OP question itself is fine; the thread did not (in my opinion) go off the rails from the beginning, but rather as it developed. What might have been implicit, or muted, came out loud and clear as the thread went on. It became clear that to acknowledge any validity of a Critical Text version was to be abandoning the doctrine of preservation entirely. To be honest, I also share Tim's frustration at making a statement (such as that regarding the Septuagint) that is backed up by all but a minuscule number of scholars, and ther response being (in essence) "oh yeah, prove it."




Prufrock said:


> Also Fred (or anyone else) -- I don't want to draw you into this if you don't want to be involved, but would you care to state how you understand 1.8? Thus far, Tim has been pretty much the only one arguing for the negative of the OP question: I would love to hear others' reasons, and how you interpret 1.8 and its relationship to the public reading of translations as scripture.



My own position would be similar to that of Williamson. The textual witnesses are actually the preservation of the Scriptures. I do actually think that the Majority Text base is a superior witness. (But of course, that issue only deals with the NT) For that reason, for example, I would not have a "short Mark" or take out a section of John. But I am not in the least troubled by potentially having either "tree" or "book" in the Revelation passage. I do think that there was a Septuagint. I think that God used that in His own wisdom in certain instances of the NT (the Hebrews passage on "a body you have prepared for me," for example)


----------



## Grymir

TimV said:


> So you're saying the CT is perfect? Contain God's exact Word?
> 
> 
> 
> No, only AVers go down that road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get what your getting at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you and Ken ask yourselves "Was God's Word written down in it's entirety and perfectly in 1450?" You will both say (if you think about it for awhile) that God's Word may not have been written down in one, single place, and that's why we are grateful to Erasmus since he compiled several differing texts to form one, different then them all, which we call the TR.
> 
> Are we on the same page?
Click to expand...


Hi TimV,

I don't quite think so. I wouldn't agree to what you said above. There's always been a true church somewhere throughout history. And I'm sure they had the scriptures. But then you say "he compiled several differing texts to form one, different then them all". That seems odd. Why would a church accept scriptures that were different?

I'm not sure why, but you seem to have a negative view of AVers. Above, you say "only AVers go down that road", and yet you've been hammering away on one word throughout this thread, the book/tree distinction. Implying that if a text quoted that word wrong, it was invalid. That seems to be your view. Which is why I as asking questions. No text is perfect, but some are definitely better than others. You also said something in an earlier post - "That's one traditional way AVers have when they run out of arguments; to talk about motive and philosophy, and they are always as vague as possible." 

It's easy to build a straw man and knock it down. When you criticize a position, a person has to represent it fairly. You pull the Ruckman philosophy and use it as if we all think like that. Which I've mentioned on several posts. So that's why I'm asking about how you represent us AVers?

Anyway, off to get some coffee, because I'm enjoying this thread.


----------



## fredtgreco

Timothy,

Let me speak just for a moment for TimV (and he can disown me if he wishes!  ) - there is a big difference between someone who uses the AV, or who even believes the AV to be the _best_ Bible, and the one who thinks that it is the only _legitimate_ Bible.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Grymir,

I think you're missing the point. Tim is pointing out that it is the AV position that the Church possesses the text of Scripture in the TR. It has no copyist errors in it, etc, because it is (I suppose) without error in the view of those who accept it as such.

The opposition to the TR assertions on this point do not all take the same form whereas the TR position tends to travel in predictable grooves. The real question is not whether or not Tim thinks a text is perfect but whether or not one of the TR advocates would agree with you when you state that "No text is perfect."


----------



## Grymir

O.k., but I have seen very few KJVers who would take that position. I've been to a few KJV-only church's, but they didn't like my Calvinism. (I thought it would be a match made in heaven, being KJV-only, but I was wrong). I didn't know that the KJV view in the mainstream holds that all other bibles are illegitimate, or that the KJV is perfect.

-----Added 12/20/2008 at 11:42:06 EST-----

I do think it's the best translation however.

Thanks y'all - Grymir


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Grymir,

You're really not paying attention very well to the conversation in this thread. What a mainstream KJV user understands or argues about the formation of the Textus Receptus (or even knows what that it is) is immaterial to this discussion.

Tim isn't interacting with the "man in the street" but with a line of argumentation that establishes the TR.

If you have nothing to offer to the issue of the formation of the Textus Receptus or a defense thereof then your comments are off topic.


----------



## Prufrock

fredtgreco said:


> My own position would be similar to that of Williamson. The textual witnesses are actually the preservation of the Scriptures. I do actually think that the Majority Text base is a superior witness. (But of course, that issue only deals with the NT) For that reason, for example, I would not have a "short Mark" or take out a section of John. But I am not in the least troubled by potentially having either "tree" or "book" in the Revelation passage. I do think that there was a Septuagint. I think that God used that in His own wisdom in certain instances of the NT (the Hebrews passage on "a body you have prepared for me," for example)



Mr. Greco, thanks for the post. There's little in here to which I would take exception if I'm reading you correctly. I also have no problems with the ESV being used in your/my church: one needs only to read Gill's commentaries to see a good example of holding to one text as your basis of authority and yet constantly quoting variant readings from both within and outside of that textual tradition -- he always notes what the Alexandrian manuscript, or the Ethiopic translation says and makes use of that in his teaching. I'm all for that, and think it to be a good and indispensable practice (like I said, my understanding of preservation is probably a bit more moderate than some on here.)

But, if you're willing, allow to me to ask you a practical question from the initial post's intention. If/when you are preaching from the ESV on Sunday morning, in a practical way, how do you address the "textual problem." Thus, when the ESV differs from the majority text, do you "correct" it? Point out the difference? I'm really trying to understand the practical outplay of this. No one can deny it's an issue, and I'd like to know how pastors deal with it.


----------



## Theognome

This is one heated thread, and I've read everything in it before voting.

I find this a 'meat VS veggies' thing. Some folks will find a stumbling block, while others will not. Both are sanctified in the Lord, and I really don't feel there is meaningful error in either position. I thus voted 'no' with genuine respect for all belligerents in the thread.

Theognome


----------



## Prufrock

Follow-up explanation:

Part of _my_ problem is that I think many modern translations have translated certain parts of scripture much better or more clearly than older TR/Majority Text translations -- I admire/prefer the clarity and accuracy of these modern translations; and yet, at the same time, I don't want to credit the mission or purpose of the critical text upon which they are based, or endorse some of its readings as "God's scripture."


----------



## fredtgreco

Prufrock said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> My own position would be similar to that of Williamson. The textual witnesses are actually the preservation of the Scriptures. I do actually think that the Majority Text base is a superior witness. (But of course, that issue only deals with the NT) For that reason, for example, I would not have a "short Mark" or take out a section of John. But I am not in the least troubled by potentially having either "tree" or "book" in the Revelation passage. I do think that there was a Septuagint. I think that God used that in His own wisdom in certain instances of the NT (the Hebrews passage on "a body you have prepared for me," for example)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Greco, thanks for the post. There's little in here to which I would take exception if I'm reading you correctly. I also have no problems with the ESV being used in your/my church: one needs only to read Gill's commentaries to see a good example of holding to one text as your basis of authority and yet constantly quoting variant readings from both within and outside of that textual tradition -- he always notes what the Alexandrian manuscript, or the Ethiopic translation says and makes use of that in his teaching. I'm all for that, and think it to be a good and indispensable practice (like I said, my understanding of preservation is probably a bit more moderate than some on here.)
> 
> But, if you're willing, allow to me to ask you a practical question from the initial post's intention. If/when you are preaching from the ESV on Sunday morning, in a practical way, how do you address the "textual problem." Thus, when the ESV differs from the majority text, do you "correct" it? Point out the difference? I'm really trying to understand the practical outplay of this. No one can deny it's an issue, and I'd like to know how pastors deal with it.
Click to expand...


Paul,

I only would comment if it made a significant difference from the point of my sermon. For example (and this is not _strictly _a textual difference, since it is a matter of Hebrew vowel pointing), when I was preaching on 1 Kings 19, I made a point to tell the congregation that I did not think "he was afraid" was the right translation/text for 19:3. I rather went with the KJV/NKJV translation of "saw" because it made a difference to the point.

I did not do that to show a "superior text" or translation, but to explain what I thought was going on in the rest of the passage, and how it was supported from the other evidence in the text. You can hear how I handled that here:

Elijah and Elisha

I believe far more damage is done with the average congregant by engaging in translation wars than by merely preaching, and not taking up every battle. The average congregant does not have the background, time, or frankly, interest in that. They want to be fed the Word of God, and be assured that they can trust the Bible that they are holding in their hands.

-----Added 12/21/2008 at 12:19:43 EST-----



Prufrock said:


> Follow-up explanation:
> 
> Part of _my_ problem is that I think many modern translations have translated certain parts of scripture much better or more clearly than older TR/Majority Text translations -- I admire/prefer the clarity and accuracy of these modern translations; and yet, at the same time, I don't want to credit the mission or purpose of the critical text upon which they are based, or endorse some of its readings as "God's scripture."



You raise a good point here. For example, most modern Americans will completely get the wrong point of Phil. 1:9 when reading the KJV:



> KJV Philippians 1:9 And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment;



as opposed to:



> ESV Philippians 1:9 And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment,
> 
> NAU Philippians 1:9 And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment,
> 
> NKJ Philippians 1:9 And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment,




That is _*not*_ the KJV's fault, but it does happen. Another classic example is how Hebrews 11:1 in the KJV has allowed the Word of Faith movement to flourish, because we do not use the word "substance" any more like the Elizabethans did.


----------



## Grymir

Hi Y'all,

One thing that I do in my class, is that the KJV is like the 'final' court when it comes to doctrinal issues. Every body has their favorite translation. (A few use theKJV, some use ESV, and the RSV, or even a NIV thrown in) They help in bring out the meaning. Like the examples that Fred gives above. But when there is a question of doctrine or theology, the KJV settles the issue. It doesn't matter to most of the people, but there are a few of us (It's usually the Libs/Barthians trying to contradict good theology) that will get wrapped up in a heated discussion. And the people get a good view of how these issues are settled.


----------



## fredtgreco

Grymir said:


> Hi Y'all,
> 
> One thing that I do in my class, is that the KJV is like the 'final' court when it comes to doctrinal issues. Every body has their favorite translation. (A few use theKJV, some use ESV, and the RSV, or even a NIV thrown in) They help in bring out the meaning. Like the examples that Fred gives above. But when there is a question of doctrine or theology, *the KJV settles the issue.* It doesn't matter to most of the people, but there are a few of us (It's usually the Libs/Barthians trying to contradict good theology) that will get wrapped up in a heated discussion. And the people get a good view of how these issues are settled.



That is a direct contradiction of the words of, and the spirit of WCF 1.8:

The *Old Testament in Hebrew *(which was the native language of the people of God of old) , and the *New Testament in Greek *(which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, *in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.
*


----------



## Grymir

O.k., I get what you are saying. We know that the Greek/Hebrew is, but we don't speak them. 

It's just a little class, I'm not the church settling unknown issues. The Barthian in my class does know Greek/Hebrew, and sometimes we break it down to that level, but the KJV says the same thing. If I was a big time theologian, or an ordained Pastor going up against the National Assembly, then I would be using them. The biggest questions I get are about election, or "What does Barth mean by wholly other?", or the inevitable Kirkgaardian "Leap of Faith" or how to defend the reformation against Roman Catholic Church thought. (We did just go through the book, Evangelicals and Catholics together, and Pascal's letters) I'm not settling controversies that will rock the church. But when people say something against the creeds or confessions of the church, I have to have something to stand on.

The WCF 1:8 goes on to say "But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated in the language of every people unto which they come,..."

We are not a class of theologians, but simple people. A farmer, an ex-Pastor, a couple of businessmen, a chef, insurance salesmen, ice cream vendors. We don't know Greek/Hebrew, so we have to have something trustworthy. Which is what I teach. That the scriptures are trustworthy.


----------



## Thomas2007

*As I see it....*



fredtgreco said:


> I cannot view the OP as stating other than that I, as a minister in good standing of the PCA, who subscribes to the WCF (and who, for the record, prefers the MT/TR to the CT), because I allow the use of the ESV in my church, I must say that I do not believe in the _Confessional_ doctrine of preservation and WCF 1.8, and I must take exception to WCF 1.8 - i.e. say that the doctrine of preservation is wrong.
> 
> In my mind, the entire thread is pernicious.




Dear Fred,

Let me provide again a quote of the WCF 1:8, because the way I understand what is being said, it is a mischaracterization of the issues. The issue of Authority is what is at stake and is the reason for the Confessional formulation.

"The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore *authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them....*"​
Based upon my understanding of the history of the Protestant scholastic defense on the textual issues and the development of confessional standards of "providential preservation" of "authentic" texts, then the Received Text is the Authority to which all other texts must be made to conform.

John Owen held to that view and it was confessionally defended by Francis Turretin in 1675 in the Helvetic Consensus Formula, which was the last and most explicit creedal defense of the Reformation textual and doctrinal position.

Owen held:

"Let it be remembered, that the vulgar copy we use, was the public possession of many generations; that upon the invention of printing, it was in actual authority throughout the world, with them that used and understood that language….men may, if they please, take pains to inform the world, wherein such and such copies are corrupted or mistaken, but to impose their known failings on us as various lections, is of course not to be approved….[t]he generality of learned men among Protestants are not yet infected with this leaven…And if this change of judgment which hath been long insinuating itself, by the curiosity and boldness of critics, should break in also on the Protestant world, and be avowed in public works, it is easy to conjecture what the end will be. We went from Rome under the conduct of the purity of the originals, I wish none have a mind to return thither again, under the pretence of their corruption.” John Owen, Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture, pg 473 to 477​

And Turretin:

"Faithful and accurate copies, not less than autographs, are norms for all other copies...and for translations. If any discrepancy is found in these, whether it conflicts with the originals or the true copies, they are not worthy of the name "authentic," and must be rejected as false and corrupted, and there is no other reason for this rejection except the discrepancy." Turretin, Doctrine of Scripture​
Helvtic Consensus Formula:

“The Hebrew original of the Old Testament, which we have received and to this day do retain as handed down by the Jewish Church…not only in its matter, but in its words, inspired of God, thus forming, together with the original of the New Testament, the sole and complete rule of faith and life: and to its standard, as to a Lydian stone, all extant versions, Oriental or Occidental, ought to be applied, and wherever they differ, be conformed.”​
Turretin further explains that by the term “original texts” he means:

“The copies (apographa), which have come in their name (autographa) because they record for us that Word of God in the same words into which the sacred writers committed it under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”​
Finally, Muller sums it up:

"Turretin and other high and late orthodox writers argued that the authenticity and infallibility of Scripture must be identified in and of the apographa, not in and of lost autographa. The autographa figure in Turretin's argument only insofar as they were written in Hebrew and Greek and are, therefore, best respresented quoad verba and quoad res in the extant Hebrew and Greek apographa. The issue raised by the Protestant scholastic discussion of the relation of autographa and apographa is, in other words, one of linguistic continuity rather than one of verbal inerrancy. The orthodox do, of course, assume that the text is free of substantive error and, typically, view textual problems as of scribal origin, but they mount their argument for authenticity and infallibity without recourse to a logical device like that employed by Hodge and Warfield." PRRD p 435​
However, that being said, no where does this imply that their is no ministerial liberty of conscience - in the historic position variant texts do not pose a problem, simply because variants exist. It only poses a problem when it challenges the doctrine of authenticity and providential preservation undermining the final authority of Scripture. That the Protestants never allowed until the 20th century, when they pressed the doctrine into an entirely different context.

It is when controversies of religion arise that a known standard is appealed to that settles the issues. Leigh pointed that out clearly as well when he wrote concerning this debate:

"If the authority of the authentical copies in Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek fall, then there is no pure Scripture in the Church of God, there is no high court of appeal where controversies (rising upon the diversity of translations, or otherwise) may be ended. The exhortations of having recourse unto the Law and to the Prophets, and of our Saviour Christ asking “How it is written,” and “How readest thou,” is now either of none effect, or not sufficient” Leigh, Treatise, I vi. P 102-3​
However, proponents of the Critical Text couple it with their dialetic philosophical presupposition of setting unknown Autographs against known Apographs that undermines the Authority of Scripture. This is done, of course, ballyhooing that nothing they are changing affects any central doctrine of the faith - but they absolutely refuse to accept the historic Protestant textual standard as definitive. Much like modern humanists the only absolute asserted is that their is no absolute and truth, and hence Authority, must be relative and always subjective to men.

If it is true that their is no controversy of religion, which they plainly claim, then what is the purpose and why do they refuse to accept a textual standard, even one they disagree with, if those places of disagreement affect no essential doctrine?

As I see it, then, if ordained Pastors understand that the "authentic" texts that settle controversies of religion is the Received Text, then there is no problem if other texts are "used." There is a problem, however, when there is no final authority, no supreme court of appeal, and that is championed under the auspices that no essential doctrine of the faith has been changed, when in reality the controversy of religion is that the final Authority of Scripture is being undermined in the name of Scripture.

In your own denomination, if the Federal Vision issue was handled plainly by refusing to allow the Confessional detractors appeal to Critical Texts to undermine the Confessional teachings, then the issue would have been put to bed simply and easily. Sorry boys, you simply can't appeal to the Critical Text to redefine your understanding of the Confession, hence the Confession cannot be made to conform to the Critical Text and restore Authority to the visible Church.

This really isn't that hard to understand, it is self evident that the Received Text is the historic Protestant standard that Protestants defended against Rome.

If proponents of the Critical Texts cannot accept the Received Text as the authentic texts for controversies of religion, then since they are departing from the historic standard, they then need to explain what doctrine and controversy of religion the Received Text teaches that they disagree with. Simply believing that a word is wrong here or there, or that one reading may be an interpolation of another, when it doesn't alter or challenge any doctrine is insufficient grounds to take exception to the Confession.


If, on the other hand, they simply wish to hold to a dialetical philosophical presupposition for their axiomatic approach to the issue of Authority and enjoin those that have altered the historic context of inspiration and preservation into a new hermeneutical context, then they need to take exception to the Confession.

Cordially,


Thomas


----------



## SolaGratia

I agree with Thomas, therefore the Church or, better yet, I agree with the Church, therefore with Thomas.


----------



## Prufrock

fredtgreco said:


> I believe far more damage is done with the average congregant by engaging in translation wars than by merely preaching, and not taking up every battle. The average congregant does not have the background, time, or frankly, interest in that. They want to be fed the Word of God, and be assured that they can trust the Bible that they are holding in their hands.



Reminds me of what Spurgeon said in his "Chat About Commenting:"

"Do not needlessly amend our authorized version. It is faulty in many places, but still it is a grand work taking it for all in all, and it is unwise to be making every old lady distrust the only Bible she can get at, or what is more likely, mistrust you for falling out with her cherished treasure. Correct where correction must be for truth's sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability. "

Have a blessed Lord's Day.


----------



## KMK

fredtgreco said:


> Steve,
> 
> I agree that this thread has had more than its share of "pushing it." But I honestly don't understand how one can read the OP question (and not the myriad of subsidiary questions in the thread):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a pastor uses a modern translation in church based on the critical text, do you think this means he should/ought/must claim to take exception to WCF 1.8 and the doctrine of preservation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to mean other than: "if a PCA/OPC/etc. church uses the NASB, ESV, etc., and the minister does not take exception, he is in violation of WCF 1.8 and the doctrine of preservation."
> 
> I cannot view the OP as stating other than that I, as a minister in good standing of the PCA, who subscribes to the WCF (and who, for the record, prefers the MT/TR to the CT), because I allow the use of the ESV in my church, I must say that I do not believe in the _Confessional_ doctrine of preservation and WCF 1.8, and I must take exception to WCF 1.8 - i.e. say that the doctrine of preservation is wrong.
> 
> In my mind, the entire thread is pernicious.
Click to expand...




Semper Fidelis said:


> I agree with Fred completely.



If this is the case, then I need to repent. I did not consider that my 'yes' vote was pernicious. Partly do to my ignorance of the Presbyterian vows I didn't stop to think that my 'yes' vote was actually an accusation.

I do not want to rebuke elders with my 'yes' vote. I want to hold all elders in double honor. I change my vote to 'I don't know'.

Perhaps someone could point me in the direction of some good Puritan writings on the subject of 'kept pure in all ages' and I could study the issue on my own.

Have a wonderful Lord's Day y'all!


----------



## TimV

> Perhaps someone could point me in the direction of some good Puritan writings on the subject of 'kept pure in all ages' and I could study the issue on my own.



In the mean time, for you and several others, are we on the same page when I assume you hold that Erasmus had more than one text in front of him, and that they all differed, and he, using these differing texts put together a new text, different than all of them?

-----Added 12/21/2008 at 11:11:15 EST-----

Hi Thomas

In the past, I've asked you to stick with one point at a time rather than bringing up multiple points in one post, as it is both frustrating and I would claim unfair. I'd love to go through those points, but for now, can we please leave the CT alone and could I get a straight answer to this question?

The Majority Text uses the word Tree in Rev. 22:19. Could you please tell me why the Elders of my Church
a) would be wrong in accepting the MT reading of Rev. 22:19
b) would be in violation of WCF 1.8 in preferring the MT reading of Rev. 22:19 even if they prefer the MT knowing that the TR is different?


----------



## fredtgreco

Prufrock said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe far more damage is done with the average congregant by engaging in translation wars than by merely preaching, and not taking up every battle. The average congregant does not have the background, time, or frankly, interest in that. They want to be fed the Word of God, and be assured that they can trust the Bible that they are holding in their hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of what Spurgeon said in his "Chat About Commenting:"
> 
> "Do not needlessly amend our authorized version. It is faulty in many places, but still it is a grand work taking it for all in all, and it is unwise to be making every old lady distrust the only Bible she can get at, or what is more likely, mistrust you for falling out with her cherished treasure. Correct where correction must be for truth's sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability. "
> 
> Have a blessed Lord's Day.
Click to expand...


Completely agree, Paul. I would argue that in Providence, the shoe is on the other foot now, with a vast majority of the Church not using the AV by default, and the only way to get them there (in spite of unfamiliar language, style and habit) is to make other old ladies (and young adults as well) distrust the Bible that they have held, memorized and seen God's promises in.

You have a blessed Lord's Day as well!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Before I engage the topic at hand let me restate something. A couple of years ago PuritanBoard was disgraced publicly by one of our members going into meltdown and insulting James White to the max. He was banned, yet it made us look bad nonetheless. There are some KJV forums _and_ anti-KJV forums which engage in unabashed flaming and other ungodly verbal behavior, and I see some of that emerging here. I won’t cite instances (though I could), but the stereotyping and disparaging are not only engaged in but justified as warranted. This is the mode of the aforementioned ungodly forums. If the moderators and administrators wish to allow this – as it is mostly (but not exclusively) directed at the minority KJV advocates – then we will have succumbed to the level of discourse that holds knowledge more important than kindness and respect. And PB’s high level of spiritual and intellectual excellence will have been horribly compromised.

To the issue of the WCF 1:8 and ministers taking exceptions. Fred, in post #251 you said, “...because I allow the use of the ESV in my church, I must say that I do not believe in the _Confessional_ doctrine of preservation and WCF 1.8, and I must take exception to WCF 1.8 - i.e. say that the doctrine of preservation is wrong....In my mind, the entire thread is pernicious.”

But then you allow that maybe the OP question was alright, the problem lay in the way the thread developed: “It became clear that to acknowledge any validity of a Critical Text version was to be abandoning the doctrine of preservation entirely.” So then what is “pernicious”? (And by pernicious I assume you mean harmful rather than wicked.) Is the Confessional doctrine of preservation? And the post-Reformation theologians who formulated it? Were they just backward (having less light on manuscript evidences than we), and the harm is by holding us accountable to their antiquated beliefs?

I would agree with this: _something_ is pernicious! That is, harmful to the unity of the Presbyterian and Reformed churches.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say, you “share Tim's frustration at making a statement (such as that regarding the Septuagint) that is backed up by all but a minuscule number of scholars, and the response being (in essence) ‘oh yeah, prove it.’ ” I hope you’re not painting with TimV’s broad brush now! My point on the LXX is simply that what we have now of it was penned by “Christian” scribes after the writing of the NT Scriptures. We do not have whatever was the OT in Greek circulating before Christ and in His day, save one possible fragment, Ryland Papyrus (No. 458), which has a few portions of Deuteronomy 23-28 on it. Like you, Fred, I know there was a Septuagint, or more accurately, portions of a Greek Old Testament, for the very name “Septuagint” derives from the legendary 72 etc. And I know there is a “Septuagint” today as well – I have a copy of it and a concordance to it in my library. Your mention of a “minuscule number of scholars” who support this view, well, John Owen was one of them, and concerning the example you gave from Hebrews 10:5 ("a body you have prepared for me"), he pronounces against it being from the Septuagint but rather in the LXX from the Epistle (in his commentary on that passage). Douglas Moo says the same concerning Psalm 14:1–3 and Romans 3:13–18 (in his NICNT commentary on Romans). 

Fred, you said, “Let me speak just for a moment for TimV (and he can disown me if he wishes!) - there is a big difference between someone who uses the AV, or who even believes the AV to be the _best_ Bible, and the one who thinks that it is the only _legitimate_ Bible.”

Of course there are different views of this with AV users, but I will restate mine, which I have been propounding here at PB. An aspect of my position is that all the churches down through the ages have had _adequate preservation_ of the Scriptures, sufficient for the saving of souls and the sustaining of the churches.

There was a process over time during which God guided “all things together for good” to bring the true readings of Scripture — which He had kept in their purity — together into one definitive text. This process involved the Byzantine textform of the Greek church, and God’s providentially correcting those few small errors that had crept into the Greek text. The pure reading of the autographs He brought together into the texts the Reformation editors compiled (the TR), in which there was _minute preservation_ – as distinguished from adequate preservation.

So, I would say that that all the Bibles are, as you put it, “legitimate” – however, all the readings in all the Bibles are not. Most of my life I have been ministered to by men (and women – I was converted through the testimony of a woman) who used modern Bibles. Very few were AV users. These were godly men, anointed by the Spirit of God. It would be audacious of me to denigrate either them or their Bibles! But I can certainly challenge them (and have) on particular readings, which I do not consider legitimate.

I had asked TimV, 

Did God leave us a Bible – a settled Scripture – which we have in hand? Is it reliable in all its parts? Can we say it is the sure Word of God to us, with certainty?

What Bible do you offer, when asked thusly?​
And he answered,

No, Steve, I am not willing to say to you that any version of the Bible in existence is “a settled Scripture – which we have in hand”...although I do believe that God has kept His Word pure in all ages. I am quite certain that one of His tasks that He has set for His church is to search it out. And in the mean time, I think it's truly miraculous that the versions we have today are so close that there really aren't the sort of differences between texts that can legitimately be said to keep anyone from knowing God's will for our lives.​
This is the problem with the Bible situation today. No one has “a settled Scripture...the sure Word of God to us”. It is said, “Well, it is somewhere in the myriad mss, and we will find it eventually.” Now what TimV said was true: “the versions we have today are so close that there really aren't the sort of differences between texts that can legitimately be said to keep anyone from knowing God's will for our lives.” And this is a blessing from God. But the issue goes deeper: is there a settled Scripture which we have in hand? Even the Majority Text advocates with their fine editions admit they are still in the process of sorting out and seeking to discover the true text. The Critical and Eclectic text editors likewise are still seeking to find out the true text. Can it be that God has not – or not yet – kept His promise to preserve His word for His people? As I am not post-mil I do not see the world going on for thousands of more years, but rather it is drawing to a close (I don’t set dates or even approximates!). And we don’t have a sure Bible _*yet*_?

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever. (Isaiah 59:21)​
I believe He has preserved it, and I have it in my hand. Why does this provoke others to go on the attack?

And just for the historical record, the phrase that Erasmus was a “very liberal Calvinist hater” again paints with a broad brush, that ends in calumny. For sure he was on the wrong side of the theological dispute with Luther, but I know godly men today – Arminians – who love Christ despite their grievous error. Erasmus was a complex character, and to make a loathsome caricature of him, when there is evidence he loved Christ despite his failings (and RC associations), is to bear false witness.

Erasmus’ Greek editions rocked all of Europe. J.H. Merle D'Aubigne, the historian of the Reformation, comments on what Erasmus had done:

The great work of the 16th century was about to begin. A volume fresh from the presses of Basle had just crossed the Channel. Being transmitted to London, Oxford, and Cambridge, this book, the fruit of Erasmus’s vigils, soon found its way wherever there were friends of learning. It was the _New Testament_ of our Lord Jesus Christ, published for the first time in Greek with a new Latin translation—an event more important for the world than would have been the landing of the pretender in England, or the appearance of the chief of the Tudors in Italy. This book, in which God has deposited for man’s salvation the seeds of life, was about to effect alone, without patrons and without interpreters, the most astonishing revolution in Britain.

When Erasmus published this work, at the dawn, so to say, of modern times, he did not see all its scope. Had he foreseen it, he would perhaps have recoiled in alarm. He saw indeed that there was a great work to be done, but he believed that all good men would unite to do it with common accord. “A spiritual temple must be raised in desolated Christendom,” said he. “The mighty of this world will contribute towards it their marble, their ivory, and their gold; I who am poor and humble offer the foundation stone,” and he laid down before the world his edition of the Greek Testament. 

Then glancing disdainfully at the traditions of men, he said: “It is not from human reservoirs, fetid with stagnant waters, that we should draw the doctrine of salvation; but from the pure and abundant streams that flow from the heart of God.”

And when some of his suspicious friends spoke to him of the difficulties of the times, he replied: “If the ship of the church is to be saved from being swallowed up by the tempest, there is only one anchor that can save it: it is the heavenly word, which, issuing from the bosom of the Father, lives, speaks, and works still in the gospel.” These noble sentiments served as an introduction to those blessed pages which were to reform England. Erasmus, like Caiaphas, prophesied without being aware of it.

The New Testament in Greek and Latin had hardly appeared when it was received by all menof upright mind with unprecedented enthusiasm. Never had any book produced such a sensation. It was in every hand: men struggled to procure it, read it eagerly, and would even kiss it. The words it contained enlightened every heart. but a reaction soon took place. Traditional Catholicism uttered a cry from the depths of its noisome pools (to use Erasmus's figure). Franciscans and Dominicans, priests and bishops, not daring to attack the educated and well-born, went among the ignorant populace, and endeavoured by their tales and clamours to stir up susceptible women and credulous men. “Here are horrible heresies,” they exclaimed, “here are frightful antichrists! If this book be tolerated it will be the death of the papacy!” “We must drive this man from the university,” said one. “We must turn him out of the church,” added another. “The public places re-echoed with their howlings,” said Erasmus. The firebrands tossed by their furious hands were raising fires in every quarter; and the flames kindled in a few obscure convents threatened to spread over the whole country.

The irritation was not without a cause. The book indeed contained nothing but Latin and Greek: but this first step seemed to auger another—the translation of the Bible into the vulgar tongue. Erasmus loudly called for it. “Perhaps it may be necessary to conceal the secrets of kings,” he remarked, “but we must publish the mysteries of Christ. The Holy Scriptures, translated into all languages, should be read not only by the Scotch and Irish, but even by Turks and Saracens. the husbandman should sing them as he holds the handle of his plough, the weaver repeat them as he plies his shuttle, and the weary traveler, halting on his journey, refresh him under some shady tree by these godly narratives.” These words prefigured a golden age after the iron age of popery. A number of Christian families in Britain and on the continent were soon to realize these evangelical forebodings, and England was to endeavor to carry them out for the benefit of all the nations on the face of the earth.

The priests saw the danger, and by a skillful maneuver, instead of finding fault with the Greek Testament, attacked the translation and the translator. “He has corrected the Vulgate,” they said, “and puts himself in the place of Saint Jerome. He sets aside a work authorized by the consent of ages and inspired by the Holy Ghost. What audacity!” and then, turning over the pages, they pointed out the most odious passages: “Look here! This book calls upon men to repent, instead of requiring them, as the Vulgate does, to do penance!” (Matt. 9:17). The priests thundered against him from their pulpits: “This man has committed the unpardonable sin,” they asserted, “for he maintains that there is nothing in common between the Holy Ghost and the monks—that they are logs rather than men!”….”He's a heretic, an heresiarch, a forger! He's a goose….he's a very antichrist!” (D'Aubigne, _History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century_, Vol. V, pp. 153-156; in recent one-volume edition, pp. 729, 730)​
Tim, I’ll get to your questions re Rev 22:19, but now it’s bedtime.

Fred,

You say,

I would argue that in Providence, the shoe is on the other foot now, with a vast majority of the Church not using the AV by default, and the only way to get them there (in spite of unfamiliar language, style and habit) is to make other old ladies (and young adults as well) distrust the Bible that they have held, memorized and seen God's promises in.​
The trouble with this is, that many young people I know, and some old ladies as well, are troubled by the stated discrepancies between versions as brought to light in the modern Bible margin notes. There is a growing lack of reverence for God’s Word due to the diminishing of its authority in many people’s eyes. “Ach! We don’t even have a sure Bible anymore; the experts don’t agree, so how can we know it’s reliable?” Maybe not in your church; but the writing’s on the wall: "NO SURE BIBLE!" This lie is seeping into the culture. What TimV said is true, the discrepancies should not “keep anyone from knowing God's will for our lives” – but the issue of diminished authority will lead to a distrust in His word. Is this not a factor in the growing apostasy? Was not the Confessional understanding of 1:8 a dyke to keep out the deadly waters of disbelief in God's word?

Is not this pernicious – greatly harmful? Where is the remedy? Is there none?


----------



## TimV

> To the issue of the WCF 1:8 and ministers taking exceptions. Fred, in post #251 you said, “...because I allow the use of the ESV in my church, I must say that I do not believe in the Confessional doctrine of preservation and WCF 1.8, and I must take exception to WCF 1.8 - i.e. say that the doctrine of preservation is wrong....In my mind, the entire thread is pernicious.”





> But then you allow that maybe the OP question was alright, the problem lay in the way the thread developed: “It became clear that to acknowledge any validity of a Critical Text version was to be abandoning the doctrine of preservation entirely.” So then what is “pernicious”?


Actually he said that the thread developed the way it did was that


> What might have been implicit, or muted, came out loud and clear as the thread went on.


And it's true, by any reasonable way you look at it. 



> I’m not sure what you mean when you say, you “share Tim's frustration at making a statement (such as that regarding the Septuagint) that is backed up by all but a minuscule number of scholars, and the response being (in essence) ‘oh yeah, prove it.’ ” I hope you’re not painting with TimV’s broad brush now! My point on the LXX is simply that what we have now of it was penned by “Christian” scribes after the writing of the NT Scriptures.


That is an opinion held by only a minuscule number of scholars. To hold to this view, you have to specifically reject the overwhelming majority of scholars. Like your strange view of Aramaic. Even after I go to the trouble to contact three top living scholars, even writing to the University of Tel Aviv to contact a famous specialist in Aramaic you still dig your feet in by refusing to admit Edersheim and Bruce were dead wrong on that issue. You still won't call Aramaic a separate language and keep calling it a dialect.



> he pronounces against it being from the Septuagint but rather in the LXX from the Epistle (in his commentary on that passage).


Well, I didn't understand that, and like Owen, whatever that quote means doesn't change the fact that academically you're on the outside looking in.



> An aspect of my position is that all the churches down through the ages have had adequate preservation of the Scriptures, sufficient for the saving of souls and the sustaining of the churches.


Now we are in agreement.



> There was a process over time during which God guided “all things together for good” to bring the true readings of Scripture — which He had kept in their purity — together into one definitive text. This process involved the Byzantine textform of the Greek church, and God’s providentially correcting those few small errors that had crept into the Greek text. The pure reading of the autographs He brought together into the texts the Reformation editors compiled (the TR), in which there was minute preservation – as distinguished from adequate preservation.


And now we get to the core of the matter. As an act of faith, the AVer sect thinks that God's Word was contained in several different manuscripts prior to Erasmus (are you reading this Ken?) but then an act of direct inspiration happened in the second decade of the 16th century, and we now have God's Word, perfect and entire, after a millennium and a half, contained in one text. Any text that differs from this Pure text is Impure, to one degree or another.



> I had asked TimV,
> 
> Did God leave us a Bible – a settled Scripture – which we have in hand? Is it reliable in all its parts? Can we say it is the sure Word of God to us, with certainty?
> 
> What Bible do you offer, when asked thusly?
> And he answered,
> 
> No, Steve, I am not willing to say to you that any version of the Bible in existence is “a settled Scripture – which we have in hand”...although I do believe that God has kept His Word pure in all ages. I am quite certain that one of His tasks that He has set for His church is to search it out. And in the mean time, I think it's truly miraculous that the versions we have today are so close that there really aren't the sort of differences between texts that can legitimately be said to keep anyone from knowing God's will for our lives.


Bingo!!!!!!
Tim and Steve agree that until the second decade of the 16th century God's Word wasn't written down perfect and entire in one text. Steve thinks a miracle occurred at that time. Tim doesn't see any proof of that miracle, doesn't belong to a Church that demands him to, and frankly thinks the whole idea borders on the cultish.



> Can it be that God has not – or not yet – kept His promise to preserve His word for His people? As I am not post-mil I do not see the world going on for thousands of more years, but rather it is drawing to a close (I don’t set dates or even approximates!). And we don’t have a sure Bible yet?


What we had in 1450 was sufficient for God's purposes. What we have in 2008 is sufficient of God's purposes. Rhetorical questions like the above don't have any answers. You might as well word it "All you people who deny the TR is exactly the Word of God, perfect and complete think that God didn't keep His promise!". As I said, this belief borders on the cultish.



> As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever. (Isaiah 59:21)
> I believe He has preserved it, and I have it in my hand. Why does this provoke others to go on the attack?


We're not attacking. The teeny, tiny sect of AVers is doing the attacking. Everything I've been doing on this thread has been defensive. Really! Now you're claiming persecution for believing God's Word!! Persecutions directed at you by members in good standing of Reformed churches!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

This thread is closed and *TR debates are hereby banned until further notice*. I'll let all parties decide how they can fruitfully interact within the Church at large in the meantime.


----------

